"Back in the good old days, telling someone your name was considered rather normal."
And if you did so while happening to be a girl then the shit would really hit the fan. You were saying?
2167 posts • joined 19 Dec 2010
"Back in the good old days, telling someone your name was considered rather normal."
And if you did so while happening to be a girl then the shit would really hit the fan. You were saying?
"Whip out your calculators now, dear readers, and punch in that stack of numbers"
Why? You don't need a calculator for this, all you need is to carefully look things over. There are only "clean" numbers in there so it's very easy to do this from mind.
Starting from the bottom: 300 + 200 makes 500. And added up to the 500 above it makes 1000.
The 1500 above that one makes 2500 and that can be added up to the first 2500 making 5000. Now all that's left is 4000 and 500, which should be extremely easy. 5 + 4 is 9 after all, so now we have 9000 and the remaining 500.
No need for your stinkin' calculators ;-)
Explosions, fire fights, even a whole space war it seems. Not to mention a plot which has been done several times before (where multiple doctors meet up; this was even used during last years Christmas special if I recall correctly).
Now, I'm not saying this is a bad thing. But after recently having gone through of the somewhat older material again (with thanks to a certain online tech magazine which featured those) I couldn't help notice that in those days the focus was fully set on the storyline where any special effects were solely used to enhance said storyline. Sure; they probably didn't have much of a choice due to restraints, but in many cases it added up quite nicely.
When looking at trailers like these I can't help wonder if Who really needs to be "bigger, badder and stronger" by mixing in a zillion special effects. Are those effects there to enhance the story, or to divert ones attention from that same story? Even if that were the case it still wouldn't be a bad thing, this is entertainment after all and if we're entertained then I'd say mission accomplished.
It's just that sometimes I honestly wonder where the subtleties in Dr. Who have gone to. I think there are times where they can achieve more with less so to speak.
And in the end I'm looking forward to seeing both Smith and Tennant in action together. In my opinion Tennant was a more convincible Doctor than Smith, the latter is always a bit too joyful for my taste. The change between joyful / careless and becoming serious is something I always considered to be a little bit too enforced on his character.
I wonder if Tennant "still has it" :-)
The hosting provider (or its admin) have also bought Twitter stocks and saw the opportunity to stir the pot ;)
You won't hear any of those comments from me. In fact; I'm a happy Win7 and Office 2010 user and I consider these two products to be quite solid. In fact; I even don't hate Microsoft Explorer all that much (although I commonly use SeaMonkey myself). Their "In-Private navigation" option for example is something I consider to be quite slick.
It's not so much hating, but some of the things MS does seem hypocrite. Take this, not too shabby, Anime. You see that the old "RGBY" Windows logo is strongly visible there. But wasn't it Microsoft themselves which recently told us that this logo is now obsolete and that we should focus our love and attention on a new, mono coloured, logo?
It's stuff like that which doesn't add up. "We now have a new Windows logo", "And here we promote our product with the logo which we recently called old and obsolete". It doesn't add up.
And being an Anime fan myself I can't help notice that story-wise Microsoft are now flaunting with the storyline of another product. I mean; looking at this video I'd say the girl more personalizes Netscape than Explorer. Think about it: shot down by Microsoft on numerous occasions (trying to twist the web by changing standards into non-disclosed standards) and although Netscape was heavily wounded (which is a nice touch in this video IMO) they sure knew how to defend themselves from the onslaught which was Microsoft.
THAT is an accurate look at history. Yet as Microsoft has done so many times they now seem to be trying and rewrite history. Worse yet: using the storyline of their "victim" to promote their own goods, how sick is that?
This isn't hating, this is Microsoft pulling yet another odd move.
Well, there isn't anything directly explicit to be seen there but yeah; I wouldn't watch that while being at work.
That transformation sequence (including the music!) awfully reminds me of the "Anime" episode which can be seen in Grant Theft Auto IV :-)
In case you're wondering what this is all about then check out this page on the Rockstargames website (click "videos" at the bottom and you can see what I'm referring to).
It was so obvious that I feel silly not to have seen this sooner.
Microsoft has said many times that PC sales would be less important and that they need to focus their full attention to mobility, in other words tablets and phones.
So what better way to help speed up this process by forcing people to use a PC operating system which no one really wants to use?
Now, of course I am joking here a little bit, sure. Still; what other alternatives (besides going Apple) do end users have who are not that familiar with alternatives such as Linux?
Oh the irony; if all of those people would end up buying Win Phones or Surfaces I could see how this might work out, but as far as I know Android and the iProducts are in much higher demand.
Is Microsoft now helping their own competitors?
While I fully agree that big corporations or big business environments can and usually will do everything to secure their income I really don't think that is the case here.
The thing is that battery powered cars have, by definition, one major flaw. Which is the battery. Anyone who has a little sense of physics knows that a battery is not merely a power storage device but also a huge energy wasting process.
During every stage of producing the required power, storing it and then re-using it you have to deal with huge losses of energy.
Now, instead of spouting off with boring formulas and such let's do a different approach: what is the number one complaint from people who are using laptops? I don't know about your environment but over here most of the people I know who prefer using laptops do so by plugging them into an outlet. Because "the batteries are hardly working". Usually the process of the batteries becoming way below average is something which is already happening within one or two years of usage.
Now; I know the next argument: of course the Tesla firm uses something a bit better than mere laptop batteries, of course they do. But that doesn't mean that their batteries don't suffer from the same flaws which batteries in general have.
Batteries are not a "what comes in also comes out" kind of process, you get less energy back than which you put in. Ergo you're wasting energy by using them. Sometimes huge amounts (laptop batteries) and sometimes lesser amounts (which I assume to be the case here). But you're still losing energy.
Electric cars are a worthy effort, but in the end I think their main purpose is only to make money while (ab?)using the environmental problems to do so.
"Most people outside the U.K. have no idea what a "boffin" is"
Maybe, but I also think most people reading El Reg usually share a common interest in something new.
I'm from outside the U.K. and quite frankly I welcome the opportunity to learn new words or find out where my interpretation might have failed me (like my classic "hover" v.s. "hoover" mistake some years ago).
And what's wrong with taking a little effort if you don't understand something at first anyway?
But still holds much truth:
I slowly come to conclude that some higher up at Microsoft is a huge South Park fan ;) First the bonus for their resellers (partners), then TechNet, now this? Or colours and such in Visual Studio?
One can only dread at the idea where this is going.
"Obama to Merkel: No Americans are listening to you on this call
...we hired a local German professional to do that for us ;)
Context is in order here, true. How about remarking that the NSA even bugged the United Nations office in Washington or the EU building in Brussels?
This idiocy is going way beyond "spying on your neighbors".
"However, the Metro tiles UI is here to stay so better get to filling out those applications in Afghanistan."
That's what they said about the start button / menu too, and look where we are now. I have a feeling we'll be seeing more and more changed back until we reach a point where people are being given a choice in this matter.
Because if people continue to ignore Windows 8 then Microsoft will have a serious problem on their hands. They couldn't afford this with Vista and they can surely hardly afford it now.
"And there is your proof that men are from Mars. Men destroyed the red planet and moved to the next one."
Actually I think the proof for men from Mars is even more obvious than this. After all: who or what are throwing all those Mars rocks towards Earth?
Conspiracies I tell you! :-)
Needless to say but I'm sticking with Windows 7 and have no intention what so ever to even look at this critter (through TechNet, now that it still exists).
I think it's a really sad development because there is plenty of potential here for something good. The idea to allow desktop users to gain access to their mobile start screen for example could be very slick. I'd pay to see that; you setup your new (online) grocery list and because you know that you'll be getting those within the next few days you can already pin the list on your mobile start screen. Right from behind the PC. That would have rocked.
Or what to think about easier content management? We have SkyDrive (or whatever new name they need to come up with). Why can't I simply drop a few items there and opt to have my phone synchronize with that? Need some new music: just dump it on SkyDrive and the phone automatically adds it to the playlist(s). That would also allow us to do a lot of content management for the phone right from behind the desktop.
The infrastructure is there, the technology (Metro) is also available on the PC, and the compatibility is also a fact (I can already create documents from behind my PC and then look at the info on my phone, even while on Windows 7 & WP7.5).
So why doesn't Microsoft take that extra step?
"Even if you have all the code, and reviewed all the code, you are still compiling it with a compiler in binary form.
So then you would need to compile the compiler again, with another compiler, but you have that compiler in binary form, so you can't trust that one either. So there's a chicken and an egg problem."
Although not solely related to security this approach is actually being used in FreeBSD (only learned this pretty recent myself).
If you compile a FreeBSD kernel (which is part of the source code for the OS) or the entire OS itself the first thing which is being done is compiling the base components which are required for building. These get placed in /usr/obj and from that moment on everything else is build using those new set of tools.
As mentioned this is mainly done for optimization and not so much security, but I suppose one could argue that this could provide a little(?) extra where trust in the build tools is concerned.
Still, in the end a bit offtopic considering that FreeBSD doesn't use TrueCrypt but relies on gbde (GEOM based Disk Encryption) and the geli cryptographic subsystems. (though TrueCyrpt is available as well as a separate program).
You shouldn't call Oracle but my company instead ;-)
A little more seriously.. They do have a point of course. For example; if you look at scalability then yes, there are plenty of open source projects out there which could very give you a lot of trouble at the very moment your demand goes up. And if you insist on continuing to use those products there will be extra costs involved to make sure everything continues to work.
What Oracle isn't telling though is that Open Source has already matured to a point where you get a choice. We're no longer in the ages of "If you want a webserver you got Apache" or "if you need SQL then here's MySQL". Instead we got a lot more: there's NGinx, Roxen, LightHTTPD, Tomcat, Jetty (If you fancy Java), Savant (for the Windows minded environments).
SQL? PostgreSQL, NoSQL, Firebird, MariaDB, MaxDB and I'm sure there's even more than this.
That is the part which Oracle seems to be leaving out.
Its not you. If you ever find your way into Berlin (wonderful city in my opinion) check out the Story of Berlin (link to German site supporting English language). It's an exposition on the Kurfürstendamm. I've been there a few years ago and I hope to go again sometime soon.
They show you a lot about the old Berlin and the great divide. The air bridge for example, that was plain out impressive. Backed up by the US; flying in everything an entire city needs. Food, medicine, water, the whole lot. Just try to imagine the sheer impact that must have had. 24 hours a day. And flying goods in is only one step; think about the continuously ongoing distribution?
That too was the US. Plain out impressive and daring alike.
So yeah, things have changed dramatically.
"Passing off unhealthy crap as "food" should be illegal."
Just what we need; a government telling us what is and isn't healthy which can then banish everything else. People in Russia often drink vodka so I'll bet that drinking vodka provokes communistic ideals; better ban that too.
In Afghanistan and Iraq lots of people drink goat milk. Must be the food for terrorists, so lets make that illegal too...
Sure I'm jesting here. But in my opinion the last thing we'd want is the government telling us what and what not to eat only because a bunch of people can't restrain themselves. There's nothing wrong with a bit of unhealthy food, as long as you make sure to balance it out.
I grew up with a C64 with a Datasette (tape drive) and the well known 1541 diskdrive. I had plenty of my stuff on tape because there were several friends who didn't have a 1541 just yet, so we also swapped tapes.
A few months ago I set up my C64 again just for nostalgic sake and guess what? Both the tapes and the disks worked like charm. I didn't even clean the heads of both devices.
So yeah, in my opinion there is most definitely a sense of reliability when it comes to magnetic storage.
Sure, I can see the advantages of the whole approach but I can also see the dangers. Because the main problem with relying on computer models is that you're not so much relying on a computer which can't make mistakes (a very commonly used argument to promote stuff like this) but a computer program made by a human who can make mistakes.
Mistakes which can happen in both the programming as well as the underlying logic which has been applied.
This is not saying their efforts aren't impressive. But I honestly think that in some cases the use of computers is also dumbing us down. For example; scientists before us who had no computers or anything of the sort were still able to calculate the orbits of the planets around us such as the moon as well as harder to spot ones like Jupiter, Saturn and Mars.
Something tells me that scientists today are no longer capable of doing so without a computer being present. Which doesn't have to be a bad thing perse, but it does make me wonder about the growing dependency.
A dependency which is easily excused yet while often forgetting or ignoring that computers, or better put: their programmers, aren't immune to making mistakes.
In science something becomes scientific when several scientists have taken notice of a piece of work and have agreed with it. So what about scientific computer models?
It seems to be a general believe within some (usually US) companies that companies need to grow in order to prosper. Something which I've always considered utter nonsense. Because what's the matter with being able to maintain a status quo in which the company can continue doing what it does yet without expansion?
The only thing which will hurt a company is the need to shrink. But that's something completely different from not expanding.
It's a nice gesture but I can't help think that commercial interests are the main drive here. Trying to put their latest and most ignored products better into the spotlight.
If they really care for people's interest in their line of products, especially the people which matter, then they should reverse their braindead decision to whack TechNet. Because that was a real valuable source of information.
If you really want to know about Microsoft products then nothing beats hands on experience combined with the vast amounts of information provided by the TechNet libraries.
I think the only stupidity here is calling his efforts stupid.
Sure, you may not agree with his opinion or his preferences (for example see my ideas about the GPL vs. for example the CDDL) but that doesn't make them stupid. At the very end he and his associates can say that they truly know how an Android environment works and operates, and that's something not many people can say.
Who cares if they re-invented the wheel by doing so? That's pure geekdom for you (IMO): you do it because you can. Who cares about the rest?
Heck; even if this project does fail it's still not stupid. At the very end it's a valiant effort.
Nothing personal here; but you do realize that if people took your approach when Stallman started sharing his visions about a free Unix environment we'd never have come this far?
Before I continue with my somewhat more critical approach I do want to express my admiration for the whole project. Because there is no denying -what so ever- that the project as is is utterly impressive.
Heck, I've lived the day where you had to pay Sun a lot of money in order to get a hold of a C compiler in order to build software on Solaris. An operating system you also had to license before you could use it. In all fairness: the same applies of course for Windows, Visual Studio also wasn't as easily obtained as it is now.
And here came GCC along the road... Even usable on Solaris!
Still, I also think that the GPL isn't providing the amount of freedom which it could have. Here's not saying it's not providing any kind of freedom, surely not, but it still tells the user what they can and cannot do with the code. For example using bits and pieces of a program and then using that in another program but using a different license, that's a no no.
Personally I'm more in favour of the CDDL which also sees to it that the original author retains his rights to his work, but also provides others with the right to use that work to make something of their own, even re-license it if they want to. As long as the original work remains licensed under the CDDL.
When I give something away for free then all I care about is being credited for my work, but I don't feel comfortable at all by telling the users what they can or cannot do with my software. Because I simply don't see the real freedom in that.
It looks impressive allright, but also limited at the same time. It seems to me that as soon as the blocks are closely together all that's steering them are their magnets. The movement itself seems more or less randomized.
Which brings me to another aspect; I was a bit disappointed that they didn't show any footage of two of them working together. For example two blocks which were linked to each other and then tried to perform a flip or movement while staying synchronized.
"People go to work to earn money, not to idiolise or dedicate their lives others."
Careful there. Under normal circumstances you're absolutely right, but do keep in mind that there are plenty of geeks out there to whom working at a high-end tech firm like Apple, Microsoft, or even a big service provider like Amazon will easily be bordering the classic "way of life" approach.
Next time I'll get caught I know exactly what to say:
The articles fail to make clear that my interest in online banking services and other online financial networking tools is based on the undeniable fact that these are the tools my adversaries use to communicate and coordinate money withdraws from my bank account and those of my allies.
I am only interested in information related to valid foreign bank transfers and bank accounts and that I operate within a strict legal framework that prohibits transferring money related to the innocent online bank accounts of EU citizens.
In the modern telecommunications era, my adversaries have the ability to hide their bank accounts and money transfers among those of innocent people around the world. They use the very same online banking sites, money transfers and other security features that protect our daily online banking activities.
My family depends on me to make some money, and pay the rent.
So in other words; if the NSA can hack the planet then surely I should be allowed to hack into their banks website? ;-)
All the Microsoft executives bought one for "marketing and economical purposes" after being persuaded to do so by upper management. It's what's best for business, and surely that's what they want?
And bing; sold out in no time!
I bet the aliens got startled by discovering something that started to look at their actions. So much for sneaking up on the MRO :)
For Tesla to continue their streak and start sueing the manufacturers of "large metal objects" because obviously they were out to damage their very good and honest reputation <cough, cough>.
"or you could call a taxi on the phone and select skip journey to be at the airfield in 5 seconds or so."
Which costs you extra money. And since most jobs and heists don't get you any payment it's not a liable option for me. I'd rather use that money to buy ammunition and armour.
When looking at the single player campaign I think R* has taken quite a step backwards. Quite frankly I think that the major reason why the map is so big is to fit all online gameplay stuff. Because in story mode the map more than often works against you.
One of the most heard complaints of GTA IV was the excessive driving. I wasn't really bothered by it, but if you failed a mission then it could get awkward pretty quickly.
So now we have Trevor, the number one pick when it comes to flying because his skills are nearly maxed out right from the start of the game. Once the game is fully under way then Trevor usually hangs out in the city and can hardly be found on Sandy Shores. Just too bad that Trevor can't buy a hangar in the city for some reason; his only hangar resides in... Sandy Shores. So if you want to fly a plane without all the hassle of escaping the police you'll just have to drive up there for 5 or so minutes.
And once you're up there.. In the event that you find a cool car or such to keep then you're out of luck again. Because Trevors personal garage is not in Sandy Shores; that one has been placed in the city (probably to avoid the need for excessive driving, yeah right...).
Don't get me wrong; the game was quite enjoyable. But I'm quite disappointed with the way they handled the story mode. At the very least give me an option to have more gunfights between and after missions; getting chased by the police all the time really starts to bore me to no end.
""Always"? It's the 2nd time. Unless GTA 2 was in LA then no."
Well, if you count LA Noire too it would actually make the count 3 ;)
Which IMO isn't that far fetched because it seems to me as if the new GTA engine has borrowed quite a lot from LA Noire. Including the sometimes annoying metallic clash sounds.
"You'll just have to wait till the "Proper Job" add-on comes out. Apparently, you can play as a stockbroker or an IT tech support guy."
Yeah, but both aren't really good enough options for me.
The stocks work fine if you have money to spend, which you don't. Not that much that is. Worse; it seems Franklin is the only guy capable of using direct stock tips because you get those in-mission, and that means you can't switch to the other characters (who got more money) and get them to invest too.
As to the add ons.. I think they'll bet heavier on online gaming than offline.
GTA is an awesome and extremely extensive game, but not as perfect as some people claim it to be. To be honest I think at some point in the game it becomes frustrating and that moves to a slight sense of annoyance.
Because; money has become more important. Heck; even for full body armour you have to cough up $2500,-. But despite that you do mission after mission, heist after heist and you don't get any payment for it. Zilch! And the one time you do hit on something bigger and get more it's mostly taken away and you're left with breadcrumbs again. Just enough to cover your in game expenses for weapons and ammo, but hardly enough for more (like buying businesses).
That became a huge frustration for me while playing GTA. You end up wondering why the heck you should bother any longer; because you most obviously won't get paid anyway.
I'm currently preparing for "the big one", but am hardly motivated any more because I get a feeling you'll probably lose most of your money again.
Here's really hoping GTA online will be better than this. I love the heists, the planning aspect is simply brilliant, but I want to get something from it, not spending most of my time marvelling the graphics and cursing a lack of income.
"They *can't* put a back door in, because it would be quickly spotted by everyone who audits the kernel source (and the rest of the source that makes up a Linux operating system -- yes, we call that Linux too, not silly names like GNU)."
So what would happen if someone did spot something out of place in the kernel source?
Wouldn't it be fair to say that if that person starts asking on the kernel mailing list they'll just get ridiculed and optionally insulted for not understanding the module they're commenting on?
I get the feeling that the only reason for including this one is to gain popularity (or more attention), but quite frankly I don't see this easily working out. In my opinion ZFS is "superior by design" but even so; it is very demanding on your resources, especially memory. So I can't help wonder if working within a 512Mb limit is going to suffice here...
Still, I maybe cynical but I do hope they'll succeed nonetheless. Because if they can manage to lower the resource demands without compromising features then this could be good news for everyone using ZFS.
"Looks like the takeover has turned out to be a very good thing for (F(L))OSS."
In my opinion the takeover has done no such thing. Nothing good has come from it.
It's not the takeover which pushed these products into the open source environment, that was basically the "obsession" with open source software living within Sun Microsystems. Don't forget that FreeBSD gained ZFS support by porting the code from Solaris, and all at a time where Sun was still a separate company.
"Don't know about Australia but the main on beer in the UK is fairly slim when you consider the taxes"
A possibly false assumption: you seem to assume that the cafe needs to charge tax over all the bitcoin purchases, and that remains to be seen. After all, according to El Reg themselves it was Germany which was the first land to recognize and tax bitcoin as an official currency.
Sometimes you don't have to charge taxes if you get payment in foreign values. But of course that most likely heavily depends on the country you're in.
Sorry, I know it's getting a bit old (I've used this more often) but I can't help it ;)
True geniuses at work here. I wonder if Microsoft has ever considered to go into the laundry business :)
"When they see how few people take them up on this offer?"
That is not true, and you know it ;)
According to Microsoft hundred thousands of people have already responded. The main problem is simply that the resellers don't inform the public as it should so many customers don't understand this promotional activity, and sometimes chose not to use the promotion but buy a new Surface instead.
It's the resellers fault :)
It's all in the interpretation, as you mentioned yourself. So since you already have 2 arms I guess the TSA has determined that you simply don't need any more.
"I think the point is more along the lines that since it is Open Source there is quite likely to be someone, somewhere in the world, that does understand it and is quite likely to blow the whistle on anything dodgy that appears in there."
Assuming that he person will be believed and actually gets a platform.
A very far fetched theory: what if some agency got to Torvalds, offered him a shitload of money and then got their fingers inside the Linux kernel?
I don't think it would be easy for anyone to find out. And if someone does find something weird and asks about it on the mailing list wouldn't it be predictable that they'd simply get scolded for not understanding the module in question after which no one will pay it any further mind?
The general comment is always that open source is good/better/preferred to closed source (or closed hardware) because you can see for yourself what the thing is doing and as such it is more secure (in the sense that it can't do things which you couldn't have known about).
But fact of the matter is that this argument is slightly flawed. A lot of open source projects have grown to such proportions that simply "looking into the source" isn't quite possible. At least not with actually studying the setup of the program first. Which introduces another problem; bigger projects usually have a lot of different programmers who usually also have different coding styles. Of course you can't expect code to be commented either for example.
And what if you're not a programmer at all?
I think that for non-programmers there is basically no difference between open source and closed source, except maybe for the price. In both cases they'll simply have to believe the stuff which people tell them, with the strict exception that if you buy something you'll get some "guarantees" (for whatever that's worth; most have been waved away with acceptance policies anyway) whereas you take open source "as is without warranties".
This isn't a black / white issue any longer I think. In some cases open source projects suffer from the exact same issues as closed source; the shroud of mystery. With, of course, the specific exception that with open source you have all the tools available to take that shroud down. For free. But would an ordinary end user go all the way for that?
"We stopped natural selection as soon as we started being able to rear 95-99 per cent of our babies that are born. We are the only species to have put a halt to natural selection – of its own free will, as it were."
But natural selection doesn't merely stop at birth. How many of those babies who got born mainly thanks to modern medical science have actually managed to live up to a commonly normal age? Not many.
Which is another aspect of natural selection; weeding out the weak. And although I most certainly agree that this process seems to have been slowed down, I don't think we stopped it. Not by far; one can't ignore that people continue to die long before their full lifespan.
Now, this may not be a very popular comment to make, I don't mean any disrespect to the families who may have had to suffer from situations like these, but what about people who manage to kill themselves in traffic, for example through use of excessive speed, crossing the railway when "nothing is coming", or other means? I think there's much more to this issue than merely looking at babies. Because if we have evolved, then why couldn't the process of natural selection have evolved with us by taking other forms which are just as ruthless?
And that's not even taking a more common aspect such as natural disasters into account.
Which is another eery thing to consider: what if we only have managed to stall things? Meaning; for all we know a disaster could happen tomorrow claiming a huge number of lives. Freak accident? Natural disaster? Or a new form of natural selection?
I don't think one can really make claims such as these. We didn't stop anything in my opinion.
In this case I simply don't know if he's right or wrong, and quite frankly I also don't quite care any more.
But I do think Torvalds is really losing it. Some websites even seem to start recollections of Torvalds' outbursts and the one I came across on Paritynews also mentioned another recent outburst regarding ARM/Soc developers:
"Ok. I still really despise the absolute incredible sh*t that is
non-discoverable buses, and I hope that ARM SoC hardware designers all
die in some incredibly painful accident. DT only does so much.
So if you see any, send them my love, and possibly puncture the
brake-lines on their car and put a little surprise in their coffee,
At first I thought this comment to be fake(d). The article I mentioned above linked to this entry on the Indiana LKML archive and being unfamiliar with all the LKML archives I started digging on lkml.org. And sure enough; the same message is present.
I think comments like these are crossing borders, not to mention being dangerous.
One of the reasons Torvalds bursts out in the way he does is because he feels there's no other way to get his point across. Apparently, according to him, there are a bunch of "stupid people" subscribed to the mailing list and the only way to get his point across is to be blunt and direct.
I can see that, I don't agree, but each to his own.
But if people are so "stupid" that you have to yell and rant to get your point across, then why can you trust them to understand that what is being said here is just "an opinion" or maybe even a "joke"?
That doesn't quite add up for me. Now all of a sudden people are smart enough to understand the "subtleties"?
As said at the top I don't really care that much any more, but I have to wonder how long before this is really getting out of control. I hope for Torvald's sake that no ARM/Soc developer gets himself in a car accident.
"MSVS 2013 requires Win 8.1?
Only if you're going to program for their app store, otherwise it will be perfectly usable on Windows 7 as well. It's basically the same issue with VS2012; it works just fine on Windows 7 (that's how I use it) but you can't program anything for TIFKAM unless you use a Windows 8 host.
Here you'll find the official system requirements for Visual Studio 2013.