- Lee_lemon
- Registered Member
-
Member for 10 years, 2 months, and 24 days
Last active Mon, Jan, 11 2016 21:17:13
- 1 Follower
- 860 Total Posts
- 36 Thanks
-
3
Elaxter posted a message on Hey, what 4 letters best describe minecraft?borePosted in: Discussion -
1
Aziroshin posted a message on Why is linux so bad for gaming?Now, this seems to be a little bit of an anti-Linux den around here, and probably nothing a "left wing liberal socialist communist free software hippie" like me (:P) could possibly write seems destined to have a good chance of spawning positive responses. Still, I felt a few things should be said.Posted in: Hardware & Software Support
Technical:
First of all, GNU/Linux does have issues on the desktop. The two most prominent ones I've encountered are sound and screen capture, with pulseaudio and the focus on it especially being an issue, where it really wouldn't have to be. Screencapture of 3D accelerated content without dedicated hardware is an absolute nightmare.
However, GNU/Linux for gaming as is, simply regarding quality and not taking into account the quantity of games natively available for the platform isn't as bad as some on this discussion are making it out to be. There have even been reports of games running faster on GNU/Linux, one of them being a very prominent one by Valve, where admittedly GNU/Linux-oriented optimizations have been in play. Though, as most games can be viewed as optimized for Windows, those games running worse on GNU/Linux might simply suffer from the lack of optimization that might have been invested into their Windows versions, especially if its games with DirectX and OpenGL engines, where the latter might simply not have received the same attention the DirectX one enjoyed.
Whilst the above might just be theorycrafting, as BC_Programming pointed out, the actual performance of the binary Nvidia driver is not as bad as some like to imply on this thread, as is demonstrated by this.
That doesn't mean that Nvidia's GNU/Linux support is near perfect, though. Xrandr support which wasn't very good for a long time, issues with more intrusive stand by methods, and in general a lack of features in comparison to what Nvidia offers software-wise in the Windows ecosystem (Geforce Experience/Shadowplay) definitely show that traditionally there has been room for improvement, and there still is.
On the "feature parity" issue, I share the negative impression Nvidia has left behind. If we want to talk feature parity, let's talk actual feature parity.
About some other notes: Whilst one might view Linux as a "cheap re-implementation of UNIX", perhaps it might be that I am lacking in knowledge, but I am not aware of any mainstream operating system that would be known to play in a different league. Apple's current operating system family is flat out certified UNIX, and Windows is certainly not surpassing the paradigm (don't start the micro/macrokernel debate... :P).
In many other aspects, the GNU/Linux desktop is just fine, with countless options to create a great and efficient working environment for a wide variety of workflows. That also makes it great for all sorts of other things, such as gaming (when the games are available for Linux or otherwise work well without hassle), as issues such as low FPS or other quirks that people might hold against it are common to all operating systems when applied to the desktop use case.
There is no such thing as a desktop operating system that has no problems, especially when it comes to games. I understand that often, for Windows affine people, the problems on GNU/Linux might appear amplified simply due to the fact that it is unfamiliar and even the thought of finding a solution seems daunting.
Lastly in this section, I'd like to point out to those people that seem to be a tad bit too negative about Linux in general that Linux is increasingly getting everywhere around us, enjoying widespread adoption in leisure applications as well as the most mission critical systems thinkable. Its incredible flexibility, reliability and adaptability (open source), and certainly also the price tag are appealing to countless individuals, enterprises and agencies around the world. It is to found in fridges, TV-equipment, a US warship, city, state and country facilities, phones, schools, servers, space, almost all of the top 500 super computers and many more.
----------------------------------------------------
Political:
This is probably the part where there will be massive friction. However, that friction can be reduced if one agrees that opinion is subjective, world views are opinions, and that morale and ethics are based on world view. It also helps to keep in mind that people don't care about these things with equal intensity. Two people might have more or less the same world view in relation to a subject, but one of them might not really care, even be annoyed people who do care strongly and press for activism, and the other be the exact opposite.
I'd also like to remark, just in case, that "ideals" are everywhere. The idea of a world where market forces rule supreme is just as much an ideal as communism. The exact same applies to the ideas of non-free or free software as we know them today. They are both ideals. I am just saying this for the people that might be using "idealism" as some kind of negatively coloured swear word.
This thread seems to be rather dominated by a hostile stance towards free software. The ideals around it have even been called idiotic. Now, that's the opinion the respective people have, however, I'd like for people to at least consider the entire spectrum of what they are condemning. They might have already done that and I am out of place, even insolent perhaps. I am just going to be bold and risk it.
Just as some believe that closed source is the way to go, for reasons of protecting one's technology from prying competitors, I also see dangers in the closed source model, in particular when it comes to the software that controls a system. I perceive closed source software as less dangerous when it is running within an environment that is controlled by open source software, as the potentially problematic code doesn't have uncontrolled access and can, theoretically, be limited in its harm.
One of the great advantages open source has is the process of peer-reviewing. Much as in science where people with a science based world view aren't reviewing every single paper ever written themselves and (within scientific reason) trust in the peer reviewing process of science, users of open source software trust, to a degree, in a sort of peer reviewing process as well. This might not happen exactly in the fashion it does in science, but you know that, depending on the project (especially its popularity), if there was malware code in the project, someone would likely notice it, if it ever somehow made its way in at all. The accessible nature of open source makes the workings of open source programs publicly known, which substantially differs from closed source software, which might have goodness knows what in there. There is also the entire debate about security by obfuscation vs. security in open source, which doesn't seem to reach quite conclusive results.
Another important factor is decentralized ownership, which makes open source code less vulnerable to control by entities (e.g. corporations or governments) with corruptive intent. Even if a project that is largely driven by a corporate entity was bought out by an entity with malicious intent or the law in a country changed, the code could still be forked away. The healthier the project in question is, the smaller the impact by such attempts at controlling it. For projects that aren't largely dominated by a single corporate entity and the distribution of ownership is heavily international, wrenching control over it becomes extremely difficult. That, in my opinion, is the ideal situation of a healthy open source project, as it makes it resilient against attempts of any one entity at controlling it.
Now, why are these things important, or why would people go out and swing big words like ethics or morale around in relation to it? We live in a world that is increasingly controlled by computers. Our entire civilization is being remodelled to be based on IT systems. Now, these systems can either be controlled by software that, in turn, is controlled by corporations, where you don't really know what they've put in there, and where the direction they choose for the software leaves the systems' users with little choice. They are also dependent on what the software vendors make available in terms of functionality. Centralized ownership also means that law from the country where the software is licensed from, in many cases mainly the HQ country, influences users in other countries who have no control over that law whatsoever.
Bigger corporations being difficult to control by democratic means also adds to these issues, as they can afford to operate on an international level. If their HQ-country becomes too inconvenient for their business practices they might decide to move to greener grounds, perhaps even abondoning business in their former home if it should prove to be too inconvenient for them to comply.
Closed source software that controls the systems of a civilization also poses a threat to democracy, as it provides fertile ground for mass surveillance (not so much of a conspiracy-theory anymore since Snowden) and even censorship. There is no way to be sure for the engineers responsible for a system or private users to know, or have any trust in what's in the closed source software they are working with, except trust in the vendor company or attempts at decompiling the binary and analyzing its behaviour (e.g. traffic, file access, system calls, memory access). I don't think that's a satisfying situation, especially when it comes to the software that controls a system.
For me personally, there is also the desire for computers to be open and not artificially encumbered by either technical means or law. Open source software and the mindset around it are a great pillar of survival for that paradigm.
----------------------------------------------------
Why the spread of GNU/Linux on the desktop is important
Desktops, phone systems and tablets are the most intimate configuration types that people usually deal with today. As phones and tablets would completely blow this already humongous post apart, let's omit them for now. I'll just say that I'd also apply the general political point I am making to these systems.
Desktops are where people get their work done, organize their lives (the part that is not done by phone or tablet) and enjoy computer based entertainment. The systems they use are important for these things to function, thus people have a chance of at least feeling some inclination to defend them against detrimental effects, such as laws or business practices that would encumber their further development, to protect their own interests. Now, this might be debatable, but one could perhaps at least agree that the chance is higher that people would act in such a way for something that provides important functions for their lives and work than something that isn't involved in their lifes in such a recognizable fashion.
Also, more users means more bug reports and potentially more developers, if these users are computer affine, which adds to the free software ecosystem.
Free software has a lot to offer and in many cases GNU/Linux is a valid desktop choice, in some (power users and beyond) arguably often even more so than Windows or Mac OS X, due to the heavy focus on customization to ones particular requirements. However, incompatibility of a variety of software and hardware with Linux leads to a situation where many people that are even interested in using GNU/Linux for their desktop are deterred. Actively pushing for an increase in compatibility is a way to improve that situation, even if some people that belong to the "I don't care"-crowd or that harbour conflicting ideals might find it annoying.
Another issue is that Linux sometimes is ignored or shunned simply out of convenience. With marketing, timing, good contracts, vendor lock in and other means Microsoft has managed to gain an oligopoly on the desktop market, and for a long time, Apple has been the only one that has been able to market their systems effectively to the left overs of Microsoft's business practices, or those that simply liked the exquisite nature of their products, as well as people with use cases that were simply perceived as better served by Apple systems in the second half of the 90ies. It should also be noted that Apple had quite performant hardware at the time, so one could argue that if Apple had been cheaper, that the market today might be more divided. Not that that would change anything on the political side of things, as Apple is on the exact same camp as Microsoft when it comes to these issues.
Getting people into contact with GNU/Linux can show people who either don't know anything else than Windows, or who simply never bothered but are willing to explore it if aided a new desktop perspective, potentially improving their computing experience. The cases I've dealt with so far where people made the transition weren't many, but people were happy, and the case that didn't quite work out in the end was compatibility related, for which Linux itself is not at fault at all, but it is the manufacturer of the hardware that let their customer down in experiencing their computer in a way that would make them happiest. It has to be said that this person keeps coming back to Linux, and from what I observe, the situation looks better every time.
----------------------------------------------------
What about you?
What you believe in is up to you. I am just trying to put the cards on the table to enable people to see it all, and not just the things that might be convenient to see, or slip through the holes of ignorance when dealing with views that aren't quite in line with the mainstream corporate ideals of the second half of the 20. century. Some people might also have fallen prey to some sort of indoctrination by people who think free software is the embodiment of some kind of totalitarian communism. It is important to note that that is not true at all, a vast array of corporate entities are participating and investing tremendous capital into open source software. Even competitors add to the same code base when it proves fruitful to do so for one's own success. Microsoft added code to the Linux kernel when it seemed conductive to their virtualization business. Open source is not hostile to business, not at all.
Those that still think the ideals around free software are somehow bad, "idiotic" or in some other way inferior or even "invalid" simply have a different world view, a different opinion. However, if one attempts to be coherent about their world view and they champion freedom and democracy, but at the same time take a negative stance towards free software should at least try to look into how these two stances are compatible, as closed source software is not freedom nor democracy friendly, and taking a position against the core ideals around free software isn't particularly supportive of these two values either. In fact, it is damaging to freedom and democracy, as it promotes closed source software over open source.
The choice of stance of course also applies to people in charge of software development or hardware vendors, which means that if their products aren't compatible with GNU/Linux that this speaks for the stances of the people responsible for that. Perhaps they have a Linux friendly world view, but they care more about that 0.4% of profit, and simply don't champion freedom and democracy enough to sacrifice a little something for it.
Many people believe that business justifies any means, that if something is being done or not done for the sake of money that it is automatically sanctified. I am not amongst the people that believe in that. I believe that if someone truly has convictions, that if someone really believes in something and wants to support it, that they can do just that. Even if it means sacrificing a little profit. If you have enough influence over a company, and your company doesn't support Linux, it either means it is running on the brink of bankruptcy and you really have to hold together every single penny, or you simply don't care enough about freedom and democracy.
I don't even have to go out and tag people as immoral or ethically wrong under some fantastical objective law of the universe that doesn't even exist (I might have my personal opinion and sometimes voice it, sure), I am simply making connections. If there are people that don't like these connections because they like to have the cake and eat it too, fine. Perhaps there's not even an issue, because people can simply say their definition of freedom or their understanding of the effect of closed/free software on freedom and democracy simply seem to differ from mine.
In the end, it's about what you do with yourself, and how your actions and inactions shape the world. Be wise about it.
-
2
BC_Programming posted a message on Necessities of a Game.I really do wonder why people so frequently put their ideas on a pedestal.Posted in: General Gaming
You have an idea. So far you don't even have concept art for the idea. You yourself have basically admitted that it's only in your head.
What you have in terms of assets is a 14-year-old (yourself) with their head in a clouds, a friend you claim can do pixel art, and a idea. An idea which has no hope to ever be executed with your current skill assets.
To make things worse, you've decided to share that idea.
Why would you do that? You know how often I have similar ideas for games in terms of detail and even how I might go about it? At least a half-dozen a day. How many do I make? Maybe one every few years. How often do I share them? Twice.
It's nice to see enthusiasm, but in this case it's only reason to exist is because it has not yet been tempered by brisk reality. I mean, take this for example:
I really do want to add an indepth farming feature, which is something not featured in Terraria, nor Minecraft. However, I do not have the money for equipment, and that is why I am having people pay for the game, so I can buy Photoshop, some sort of high end music editor, and possibly even higher 1 or 2 workers.
See, warm, enthusiasm. Here, have a cold bucket of iced reality on the side.
That's not how it works. You cannot "hire" people and promise to pay them "when the money comes". I make a certain amount for my work with my company. I've made mistakes and cost the company money due to bugs I introduced or from wasted man-hours trying to track them down. I've also saved or made the company money through saved time by making certain tasks easier or making diagnostic information easier to acquire for support. I get paid the same amount either way. When we decide I should write a new program, it's never "you write that new program, we'll pay you some portion of how much it makes". Because that is not a sustainable business model.
If you want to create a game and hire people and buy software and tools to create the game, you need money. Not a promise of money. Unless you want to hire other 14-year olds who are still living with their parents and don't have the excitement of paying bills or feeding themselves and so forth.
-
4
Pluviae posted a message on Encouragement.Whenever I feel bad, I just look at this GIF:Posted in: General Off Topic
-
1
Xaanos posted a message on Minecraft on 32-bit ARM platforms: crashYou need to take the source code to LWJGL and built it for your platform or find some compiled version on the internet. Minecraft only has the x86 version of the native libraries with it.Posted in: Java Edition Support
Edit: Update
The LWJGL in the Ubuntu ARM Repos is compiled for ARM and OpenGL ES. If you don't have Ubuntu you need to find if this is true for the specific distro you are using if not you will have to go find it. -
1
Squidling posted a message on Adventure time season 6 premiereRobot arm inbound.Posted in: Culture, Media & Arts
Pendelton Ward has as a soft spot for robot arms. -
2
Habanero posted a message on $175,000 to clean up after teen's public urination in PortlandPosted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
If they did that, people would complain about police brutality instead. -
5
glargenheimerstein posted a message on That awkward moment when your gaming is going well until...AutobalancePosted in: General Gaming -
13
BC_Programming posted a message on Free software : How understandPosted in: Hardware & Software Support
What a graceful man...
Some other wonderful quotes from this brilliant Free Software pioneer:
A parrot once had sex with me. I did not recognize the act as sex until it was explained to me afterward, but being stroked by his soft feathers was so pleasurable that I yearn for another chance
As a matter of principle, I refuse to own a tie.
I have several free web browsers on my laptop, but I generally do not look at web sites from my own machine, aside from a few sites operated for or by the GNU Project, FSF or me. I fetch web pages from other sites by sending mail to a program that fetches them, much like wget, and then mails them back to me.
A year later, the same TI group manager approached me about writing some documentation about the internals of the Lisp machine system; he invited me to dinner. I required him to demonstrate nasal sex in public with a plant as a condition of meeting him. Fortunately, the restaurant provided suitable flowers. He tried it, and even liked it! Which goes to show that no one is incapable of personal growth.
(eg, "I know nothing about modern computing and still do it the same way that I did at MIT before I dropped out")
Not to mention his Prima-Donna speaking rules.
I probably know more about it than you do.
The Free Software Movement, launched by Richard Matthew Stallman in the 80th is :
No. It's called the Free Software Foundation. It was launched by Stallman because he wanted to keep siphoning off the software skills of people like Richard Greenblatt and Peter Samson, and wants to keep living in those final days of the MIT Model Railroad Club before the industry surrounding it was born, when he could freely take other peoples code and ideas because sharing was encouraged.
-A way to develop, no more effective or less effective, or more lucrative or less lucrative but more user-friendly.
This is false. Open Source, and in particular, GPL/FSF compatible development is burdened by two things. The first is the figurehead doofus, Richard, who doesn't use any browsers and does all his networking with Email and reads websites using wget and emacs, because he is just that devoted to living in the past. Most importantly, the biggest problem for FSF-compatible development is that it puts the license on the code above that codes function or usability. No matter how functionally superior or user friendly a piece of software is, if it doesn't have a "FSF-approved" license, it must be discarded. This is why the FSF's "visitors" to the Windows 8 launched were giving people the Linux distribution "trisquel" because it is only the most niche distributions that adhere to the FSFs ridiculous dictations and get the approval of the almightly neckbeard in chief.
If a software is a free, that does not means it costs zero dollars (or zero pounds, or zero euros, etc.)
Yes and no. You can charge for compiled binaries, however, you must make the source code available to anybody that wants it.
0 - Use the software without restrictions.
Except those imposed by the GPL.
Learn useful things by reading the source code.
Which, of course, nobody actually does, which is why Apache had backdoors for nearly 6 years before anybody noticed- not to mention the SSL flaw introduced by being perhaps too trusting of the "Many Eyes" approach.
This 4 freedoms is the base of the free software. An simple-to-implement recipe (especially with free software licenses) without disadvantages and one big advantage : the benefit of the community.
You'd think so, but the FSF seems to be a political platform to push Richard Stallmans personal agenda's to the detriment of the community it claims to represent. The Free Software community would be much better off without his support of pedophilia and ill-informed ramblings being posted as a representation of the whole.
There are so many free software in our life (and especially a geek's life), some examples
Don't fool yourself. I've worked with computers for over a decade and while I do like most of the things that are made available and the Open Source community in general, I find the FSF, GPL, and the community surrounding the FSF and it's politics to be entirely toxic to the process of software development.
The GNU/Linux system, mistakenly frequently called Linux, but Linux is the name of the kernel.
Actually, less than 10% of a typical Linux distribution is comprised of FSF GNU components. It's notable that if something is under GPL, that does not make it GNU. The only components of a typical distribution that are GNU are the GNU coreutils and GCC; both of these are quite easily replaced, and most important consist of a very large minority of the codebase. Insisting that the product name include credit of that is a very self-important attitude, considering the minority and relative non-importance of that contribution.
In fact, there was a code % count done on the entire codebase of a typical Linux distribution. The result? 8% of the entire distribution was GNU. Thus dictating that it should be called GNU/Linux is based on 0 facts; to claim that Linux is only a tiny component of the entire system is to also ignore the fact that the Kernel code is actually a far more significant portion of the typical distribution in question. It's Linux. If you want to call a System GNU in any capacity, wait for the precious HURD; Without the kernel there wouldn't be a GNU anyway, so to try to now dictate that the project (Linux) that basically made GNU viable should now include GNU it's in name, despite the fact that a large majority of distributions actually have very little portions of the GNU project (having found much better alternatives, such as CLang in some cases) is stupid at best.
although quite daunting by its command line interface has a larger market share than Windows (Windoze, as we call it, in the free software community).
None of what you said makes sense. The following comparisons do not compare to "Windows" anyway.
MySQL, the database system often used
And which is eclipsed in overall usage by Oracle and SQL Server...
Apache Server, a server software frequently used
And has been losing market share to IIS for the last decade thanks to the fact that it had backdoors and a completely broken SSL certificate verification for a few years, completely shaking the ide that Free Software is somehow more secure. You still have to trust the competence of the developers.
-PHP, Perl, Ruby, Python... The free languages are very used.
Python isn't GPL. it uses it's own license that happens to be GPL compatible. Ruby is under the BSD license, and PHP uses a BSD style license. BSD!=GPL and neither are "GNU". The only thing listed that is even under the GNU license is Perl.
In fact, technically, you could add all Microsoft's .NET compilers to that list. All Roslyn Compilers are now Open Source under the Apache License.
-GLAMP (GNU/Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP), a combination of software often used for servers, it includes a complete operating system (GNU / Linux) software for servers (Apache), a programming language server (PHP) system and a database (MySQL ).
LAMP's popularity is primarily due to it's ease of access. In particular, a webhost is far more likely to use a shared hosting system using a LAMP setup than using IIS or ASP.NET, simply because the latter has licensing considerations which apply to such shared environments. It is not necessarily functionally superior; which is pretty obvious given the fact that PHP is such a crappy programming language (not surprising given it was never designed to be one).
The BSD-based systems.
BSD based systems are NOT GNU. They are Not 'Free Software' by the terms on which you are claiming. BSD adherents choose BSD because they find the GPL to restrict their freedom.
-The entire Mozilla suite: Firefox, Thunderbird, Sunbird, Seamonkey...
Which are all under the GPL compatible MPL, not the GPL. And again, something being GPL'd does not mean it is a component of "GNU". That's downright stupid and tries to assign credit where it does not belong.
The list is very, very, very long.
Yes, and the list is doctored. GPL!=GNU. If I release something under the GPL, that project does not become a GNU project. GNU projects would be projects managed by the Free Software Foundation.
All the ideas that the sharing deprives businesses of their money are false ideas.
Are they? All the most successful Open Source projects have financial backing from a company. Firefox has Mozilla, which is backed almost entirely by agreements with Google. Ubuntu has Canonical, and RHEL has Red Hat.
This belief is because proprietary software companies do believe that all users of copied versions would have bought the official version
the FSF and GPL have absolutely nothing to do with Piracy and they do not condone it in any way. They support the use of Free alternatives and no proprietary company 'believes' the things you claim they do.
while most users do precisely copied versions either becaufe:
-They are minors and their parents do not want to buy
-They want to test
-They do not have the money
-etc.
This has nothing to do with Free software. That is piracy.
The free software is not a development methodology is a philosophy and a political movement.
Agreed. This is it's biggest problem. They don't actually do anything. They just tell others what they should do.
Which license to choose?
BSD/MIT. If you want to Open Source, use BSD/MIT IMO because the GPL ironically restricts the freedom that the code can be used.
Some also speak of open source software. The definition is very similar but differs on some points. In general, the open source movement emphasizes the practical aspect rather than the philosophical aspect.
Open Source is "Free/Libre Software" with the self-important, anti-social political garbage spewing from a skin-eating, pedophilia supporting douchebag taken out and replaced with people who actually want to make software better. the GNU and FSF don't want to make software better- hell, Richard doesn't even use modern software, he uses emacs and wget to read websites for goodness sake- if anybody is out of the loop as to what users actually need, he's it.
They say for example that the software will be more flexible and more efficient. This is true, but it's not the priority. The priority of the free software movement is to deny proprietary software.
Which is why it's a failure. It's an approach based on a negative. To the FSF, It doesn't matter if a piece of software is easier to use, more friendly, and all around better for the user- if it's not under a license that they approve it is considered unethical and implied as evil. Software should be judged on it's own individual merits, not on the license on which it's source code is licensed.
-Do not use proprietary software
No. In fact, I help write it. Companies pay for the software I help write, and my company pays me. and I make a living.
There is no Open Source alternative for the software I write, nor a variety of other business software. Why? because it's not fun to write. Kernels aren't fun to write, which is why it took GNU something like 30 years to get a HURD kernel.
Create posts like this post for encourage peoples
Right, because regurgitating a paraphrase of the classic Stallman copypasta is totally going to get you support.
-Why not be volunteer to the FSF?
Because I use deodorant. kind of disqualifies me.
Replying rules
You cannot impose rules on who replies to your thread. Besides, doing so is simply unethical! See I can make silly generalizations too.
-At the same time, ask to [email protected] too. Volunteers from the FSF will reply.
Unless of course they are at a Magic:The Gathering tournament.
-Don't be stupid : this is free as in freedom.
-Don't say "Linux" if you want to say about the GNU/Linux operating system. Linux is just the kernel, an important part of the system, but other parts are too important.
"This is about freedom! Oh, you're not allowed to call it Linux" In other words, it's about freedom to be told what is and is not free and what I should and should not use. Free Software would advance much farther without the deadweight of the fat sloppy, nostalgic nerd Stallman at the helm. As it is I avoid GPL at every possible opportunity because I don't want to even remotely associate myself with a person who supports pedophilia, thinks contributing to emacs is the best thing anybody can do in the world, hopes that people screw his body after he's dead, and has the social awareness of a vampire's butthole.
-
1
Wolley74 posted a message on Good HeadphonesPosted in: Hardware & Software SupportQuote from XSSheep
http://www.amazon.co...WD3Q2KNBSHSGVJK
or
http://www.amazon.co.../ref=pd_cp_MI_2
Both would be good for producing music as they have a 'relatively' flat sound signature. Both under $150 too. Sony's have slightly nicer mids but the bass isn't quite as punchy as the M50's (still very nice though). They are however $50 cheaper and they sound very, very comparable.
if he's doing production you do not want bass, you want as flat as possible which is why i suggested the KRKs, much better sound stage and better signature for music production then the M50s which have too much bass for it - To post a comment, please login.
1
lol just use a cheat
1
afaik a server running at 5 ticks will have a 4x longer day than a 20 tick server so minecraft should use system time to make it always the same
1
who buys windows?
1
1
1
1
happened to me once
1
so deep
2
2
Actually, it's so much worse