Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Graphics Software

Linux Used To Make "Star Trek, Nemesis" 249

Posted by timothy
from the don't-you-mean-dilithium-kernel dept.
Mike McCune writes "The "Linux Journal" has a nice article about the switch from Irix to Linux at Digital Domain and the use of Linux in 'Star Trek, Nemesis.' I guess this means that Linux is finally ready for 'The Enterprise.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux Used To Make "Star Trek, Nemesis"

Comments Filter:
  • No (Score:5, Funny)

    by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Sunday December 08, 2002 @12:21PM (#4837991) Homepage Journal
    ``I guess this means that Linux is finally ready for 'The Enterprise.'''
    No. It means the Enterprise is finally ready for Linux.
    • by Fembot (442827) on Sunday December 08, 2002 @12:27PM (#4838032)
      Can it automaitcaly re-modulate the phase buffer to route power to the primary shields without someone having to crawl through dark monster infeseted tunnels?
      • by cioxx (456323) on Sunday December 08, 2002 @12:41PM (#4838122) Homepage
        Yes. With a kernel patch codenamed "Omega 9".
      • by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Sunday December 08, 2002 @02:01PM (#4838578) Homepage Journal
        ``Can it automaitcaly re-modulate the phase buffer to route power to the primary shields''
        Nope. The manufacturer refused to release specs for the hardware, so no driver has been written yet. Reverse engineering is in progress, though.
        • ``Can it automaitcaly re-modulate the phase buffer to route power to the primary shields''
          Nope. The manufacturer refused to release specs for the hardware, so no driver has been written yet. Reverse engineering is in progress, though.


          Not so fast!
          The data stream between phase buffers and any output device (including the primary deflector antenna) must be encrypted as required by the QMCA (Quantum Millennium Copyright Act). Since the act also makes it illegal to decrypt that content, or exposing the encryption algorithms publicly is banned by the same act, any hope of having open-source drivers is pretty well stuffed! Besides, the phase bufferes would never allow output to an untrusted device, like the deflector dish; no part of the shield system has the proper Palladium4 technology to ensure content security.

          This is what you get, for allowing unlimited "soft money" donations to Federation Council members! And yes, "Steamboat Willie" is still under copyright, until at least the year 4300.
      • by RPoet (20693) on Sunday December 08, 2002 @03:11PM (#4839052) Journal
        Leela: I didn't wanna leave them either, Fry, but what were we supposed to do?

        Fry: Well, usually on the show, somebody would come up with a complicated plan, then explain it with a simple analogy.

        Leela: Hmmm... if we can re-route engine power through the primary weapons and reconfigure them to Melllvar's frequency, that should overload his electro-quantum structure.

        Bender: Like putting too much air in a balloon!

        Fry: Of course! It's all so simple!
      • "Can it automaitcaly re-modulate the phase buffer to route power to the primary shields without someone having to crawl through dark monster infeseted tunnels?"



        No but emacs can.

  • Data... (Score:5, Funny)

    by coryboehne (244614) on Sunday December 08, 2002 @12:22PM (#4837992)
    I wonder if Data runs on an advanced version of the Linux kernel... It would explain his lack of humor....
    • Lack of humor? Donno, there is some pretty humorous stuff in the kernel. :) "lpX: printer on fire"? And don't forget all those fun fun swear words... the Linux kernel is not only funny, it's PG-rated!
    • I wonder if Data runs on an advanced version of the Linux kernel...

      Of course not. Data runs on the most advanced operating system kernel of the 24th century: the cutting-edge, recently released GNU/Hurd 1.0. Indeed, Dr. Sung was one of the early adopters, and has a picture of RMS hanging in his laboratory, right next to his copy of O'Really's Learning GNU EMACS (Ninety-Fourth Edition).

      Lore ran on GNU/Hurd 0.999999.999. Notice how quickly the Open Source Community fixed that bug! And there were only a few hundred deaths on an obscure colony...

      The Enterprise itself is running VMS, I imagine. No other explanation.

      The Borg obviously run on the most recent iteration of Windows, namely Windows gimel ka (they ran out of Latin alphabet two-letter names two centuries ago). They were quite pissed with Redmond when the Enterprise recently discovered and exploited a long-standing vulnerability that caused all systems in their root domain to go down when one server was given a hibernate command from outside the domain. But Bill G. showed up at Unimatrix 0 in his latest cyborg body with a bunch of freebie licenses and smoothed things over, so they signed up with the New Assimilation License program.

      And the Vulcans, being a more advanced species, run OS XXX (that's pronounced Oh-Ess Ten-Ten-Ten). But they could be running FreeBSD if they wanted to; they just like the three-dimensional alpha blending on the latest Ether desktop. They're just as geeky as everyone else, damnit. It's just more logical to use an operating system with a paid support option behind it.

      And Steve Jobs' frozen head is STILL a genius!

      • Yah, yah, yah, I meant Unimatrix 1. Just shows how badly the Borg's programming is fouled up: they can't decide if their indices start at 0 or 1.
  • by RavenDarkholme (27245) on Sunday December 08, 2002 @12:22PM (#4837996)


    I guess this means that Linux is finally ready for 'The Enterprise.'

    Urge ... to ... KILL ... rising.

    For that, you should surely be PUNished.
    • Re:Grooooaaannn! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Linux Freak (18608)
      That urge can be fought. We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands! But we can stop it. We can admit that we're killers...but we're not going to kill...today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill...today!
  • by Frothy Walrus (534163) on Sunday December 08, 2002 @12:24PM (#4838006)
    When companies switch from Irix to Linux, it means one of two things:

    * they bought new SGI workstations, which run Linux, OR
    * they couldn't afford SGI workstations, so they bought other Intel workstations with Linux.

    It's not an amazing breakthrough jump. It's just that SGI barely sells Irix machines anymore.
  • by zenst (558964) on Sunday December 08, 2002 @12:24PM (#4838007) Homepage Journal
    The only thing that holds ANY OS or hardware back is applications. Given how well and cheaply a cluster of linux box's can be put together its only a matter of time before people start adopting it. Also the like of MQSERIES (now part of websphere unfortunatly) are available on linux and offer a very simple way to migrate legacy CICS applications or parts of from expensive mainframes, and in a reliable assured way.
  • Sequel (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    and for the sequel - the use of Linux in making
    M$, Nemesis :)
  • by wuchang (524603) on Sunday December 08, 2002 @12:25PM (#4838015)
    maybe you guys should post articles on movies that don't do their CGI with a Linux cluster (along with their cost of production).
    • "maybe you guys should post articles on movies that don't do their CGI with a Linux cluster (along with their cost of production)."

      CGI is a very interesting field that quite a few members of Slashdot are interested in. It's a pity they only cover it when they can link Linux to it in some way. It's like some feeble attempt to inflate the importance of Linux in the workplace instead of reporting news.

    • Good idea, submit one. Better yet, since this a considered a OSS-centric forum, and the success of, say, XP, in the office space is of little to no relevance, why not find a site that covers what interests you?
  • "From Red Hat to Red Shirt"
  • by Profane Motherfucker (564659) on Sunday December 08, 2002 @12:27PM (#4838029) Journal
    Here's the deal: a switch from IRIX to Linux doesn't mean a fucking thing. They've switched from one variant of Unix to another. What was gained in the end? A net gain overall for Unix of not a fucking thing. Zero.

    If they switched from Windows- or Mac-based machines, then this would be legit. Other than that it's meaningless in the sense of Linux is Taking Over.

    That's all fine and great that it makes for a good story, but if the point is to claim that somehow people are realizing the benefits of Unix-derived operating systems, then it means squat.
    • by jimmy_dean (463322) <james DOT hodapp AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday December 08, 2002 @12:32PM (#4838068) Homepage
      If they switched from Windows- or Mac-based machines, then this would be legit. Other than that it's meaningless in the sense of Linux is Taking Over.

      Mac OS X is more Unix than Linux is...Linux is only a clone of Unix functionality and style. But jump forward in time to today and Linux is very much doing its one thing - blazing new trails in speed, stability, and of course acceptance of a free OS in the enterprise sector of business.
      • Mac OS X is not "more Unix than Linux", not by any stretch of the imagination. OS X is based on BSD, which no longer incorporates any code derived from original Unices. Therefore, they are both "clones". Mac OS X is a registered Unix, ie. they paid to be able to call it Unix. Linux probably meets the single unix specification more closely than OS X, but no one has paid to have Linux certified as a Unix.

        • Mac OS X is not "more Unix than Linux", not by any stretch of the imagination. OS X is based on BSD, which no longer incorporates any code derived from original Unices. Therefore, they are both "clones". Mac OS X is a registered Unix, ie. they paid to be able to call it Unix. Linux probably meets the single unix specification more closely than OS X, but no one has paid to have Linux certified as a Unix.

          "Unix" means Unix 98 certified [opengroup.org]. Any arguments about what's more Unix than what can easily be answered by this method.
          • Isn't the reason Linux is NOT Unix 98 certified because Linus Torvalds would have to pay a small royalty on each copy of Linux distributed with the Unix certification (which obviously would be a Bad Thing)? I'm asking, that was always my understanding.
            The Linux trademark, on the other hand, LT can license however he wants to, and doesn't have to charge people who use it: he can just license the circumstances if he wants to.
            IANAL, of course.
            • You are correct, AFAIK. Linux is not certified because it would cost money, which obviously would not work.

              And furthermore, *BSD, which OS X is based on(!), is also _NOT_ certified.

              So this whole "OS X is more Unix than Linux" is total BS.

              Cheers.

      • OS/X is based on a BSD kernel. Last I checked, BSD was a Unix clone as well.
      • Mod parent down (Score:2, Informative)

        by phoxix (161744)
        This FUD is disgusting. Apple themselves don't claim OS-X to be a UNIX, but rather Unix-based. Go to their website ( http://www.apple.com/macosx/ ) and you will see for yourself the silver image that claims such.

        Additionally, your comment that Linux is very much doing its one thing - blazing new trails in speed, stability, and of course acceptance of a free OS in the enterprise sector of business is a disgusting comment.

        Linux is doing far more then you can even begin to imagine. People are writing QoS packet schedulers, playing with distributive computing, and even using linux to create wireless APs.

        Please take your FUD else where.

        Sunny Dubey

      • Mac OS X is more Unix than Linux is

        Yeah, rrrright. Because Steve sais so, right?

        Some hairsplitters say that Linux is not Unix because the kernel is not the same codebase.

        Well MacOSX uses a Mach kernel, which is not even remotely a Unix kernel.

        I will start to consider MacOSX a Unix when they

        • support more than one desktop out of the box. Currently, it's the "run only one app at a time"-Windows feeling, not the "I got all my 16 desktops stuffed with apps"-Unix feeling.

        support 3-button mice. Really, not half-assed. Also they would actually have to ship those mice so that apps start to support them too. I want to middle-click a scrollbar and the handle shall jump where I clicked. I want to push windows into the background with the middle mouse button. And the KDE-like acceleration key for faster resizing and moving would also come handy.

        support pasting with the middle mouse button

        support X apps out of the box

        Yes, I tried it. Yes, the animations are nifty, the first half hour I used it, I was stunned, it felt great. After 2 hours I got used to it and after 4 hours the animations are just slowing you down. (BTW, any way to tell MacOSX not to animate the "minimize window" action? It gives me choices for 2 types of animations, but no "no animation" choice. That's one of the things that annoy me most) Also, the dock is rather counterproductive. The icons wander around depending on how many apps you are running, it's not funny.

        To get some actual work done, I prefer KDE/Linux over MacOSX any time. MacOSX may barely beat the Windows GUI (also a matter of preference, I guess), but it's still miles away in the usability (note that usability does not equate demoability and eye-candy) department to KDE or even GNOME.

      • by Phroggy (441)
        Maybe the CLI environment is more UNIX than Linux is, but the kernel is Mach, the GUI is Quartz, and the APIs are Carbon and Cocoa.

        That said, being able to type "crontab -e" and having it open in BBEdit is pretty amazing. ;-)
    • If they switched from Windows- or Mac-based machines, then this would be legit. Other than that it's meaningless in the sense of Linux is Taking Over.

      Why? Windows, MacOS X and IRIX are all to some extent POSIX compliant, as is Linux.

      Linux has something none of those do of course. I won't bother going into what that something is, I think we've all got the general idea by now.

    • by spitzak (4019) on Sunday December 08, 2002 @01:11PM (#4838287) Homepage
      Linux has replaced a significant number of NT machines at Digital Domain, both on the desktop and in the renderfarm. The machines are not being bought to replace Irix machines, they are being bought instead of Windows machines. And they are being bought for Linux itself, not because Linux is cheaper (each machine has a W2K license because they are dual-boot in case we need a huge LightWave render, and we pay for RedHat, so they are more expensive!).

      Although we still have lots of Irix machines around we use them only because their cost is zero (since we already own them). Believe me Irix is not even considered in any consideration for purchases. We also have a lot of the SGI 320 NT workstations, which were a huge mistake, neither W2K or Linux work right on them. It was a direct competition between Linux and Windows and Linux won.

      We could not consider Mac until OS/X came out. I understand it is quite popular at other places, and if our software is ported (which should not be hard) I think it will be popular at Digital Domain. Unless Linux GUI is improved considerably in the next 2 years it may find itself pushed back into the renderfarm and servers and off the desktop by OS/X.

      • What sorts of specific things about the linux GUIs (KDE? Gnome? The widget sets?) compared to OS X are a problem?
      • by Thagg (9904)
        > Linux has replaced a significant number of NT machines at Digital Domain, both on the desktop and in the renderfarm. The machines are not being bought to replace Irix machines, they are being bought instead of Windows machines. And they are being bought for Linux itself, not because Linux is cheaper (each machine has a W2K license because they are dual-boot in case we need a huge LightWave render, and we pay for RedHat, so they are more expensive!).

        IIRC, there used to be a very strong pro-NT camp at Digital Domain. They were tireless and strident in their belief that anything Unix could do, NT could do better, claiming that the success of Titanic, for example, was due to NT. Or some such rot.

        Fortunately, most of them decamped to form a company called Station X. There they continued to sing the praises of NT right up until the time they went out of business.

        Digital Domain has been in the vanguard of those using Linux in visual effects for quite some time; and has been an inspiration to me and others in the industry. As they write quite a bit of their own software, they were able to adopt Linux sooner than most other companies who relied on commercial systems -- although now almost all of the commercial visual effects packages run well on Linux.

        thad
        • I think the group you are talking about was more advocating Lightwave and other off-the-shelf software (vs the traditional heavily customized Alias/Softimage/RenderMan pipeline), rather than NT (vs UNIX). By the time they formed Station X, they were producing results just about as good as the traditional pipeline, but much more quickly and cheaply. (although I attribute this just as much to their artistic talents as choice of software). Station X failed for stupid legal reasons; I was told they were actually quite profitable.

          (disclaimer: I worked as an intern at SXS one summer - it was one of the most exciting jobs I've had!)
        • IIRC, there used to be a very strong pro-NT camp at Digital Domain. They were tireless and strident in their belief that anything Unix could do, NT could do better, claiming that the success of Titanic, for example, was due to NT. Or some such rot.

          Ah, memories...

          My stint at D2 was brief, largely on account of a certain NT-fanatic manager. Often I would find little presents from this guy on my desk - once I got a photocopied article from NT World suggesting that the future of systems administration was Windows NT-only environments and XLNT. Yes, he was snowed by some astroturf review of a commercial re-implementation of the VMS DCL scripting langauge.

          This guy ended up driving away most of the systems staff, including myself, over a very short time period. The VP interviewed in the article made tossing this guy out one of his first acts - unfortunately, I was already gone by then; I'm sure d2's a better place to work now.

          -Isaac

      • each machine has a W2K license because they are dual-boot in case we need a huge LightWave render

        LWSN.EXE runs quite well under Wine, you know ;-)

        • It is vital that the plugins work as well. If they do this may be a good idea. I don't know if anybody has considered or tested it. Straight calculation like a LightWave renderer would probably run at nearly 100% speed under Wine.
          • I am running a functional render farm of 4 Linux machines with LWSN 5.5 and 7.5. I don't use many plugins but the ones I have work OK.

            Sometimes it runs faster than Windows. (I think it could be that the Linux malloc and VM implementations are better, or the Win32 console subsystem is just really slow).

            The hard parts were finding a stable version of Wine and getting suitable X and filesystem environments set up. I'll let you figure those out :)

            I do wish Newtek would just release the Linux build of lwsn. My guess is they are terrified of the support issues.

            Incidentally, the Layout and Modeler GUIs are pretty close to usable in Wine, except for some annoying mouse/keyboard input bugs.
    • Okay, let's try this again. Here's the deal: a switch from IRIX to Linux doesn't mean a fucking thing. They've switched from one variant of Unix to another. What was gained in the end? A net gain overall for Unix of not a fucking thing. Zero. A switch from a shackled proprietary OS to an open one is a major shift.
    • I'm more curious why a post proven factually wrong one level down, by someone who is in a position to know, is still sitting at +5 Insightful.
    • Here's the deal: a switch from IRIX to Linux doesn't mean a fucking thing. They've switched from one variant of Unix to another. What was gained in the end? A net gain overall for Unix of not a fucking thing. Zero.

      Well, there were several things gained:

      • Many studios were switching or were planning to switch to Windows NT. That was stopped.
      • Linux reunites Unix. Less compatibility problems, better 3rd party support, 'nuff said.
      • Linux is easily available. Nobody can easily try out Irix. It costs a lot. Linux, on the other hand is everywhere and makes it much easier for startups.

      I see the story on servers repeated:

      1) First, many switch from Unix to Windows.
      2) Then, many switch from Unix to Linux.
      3) Then, many switch from Windows to Linux.

      On servers, we are on stage 3), in the movie industrie we are on stage 2). Just wait another 2 years and we will see massive Windows to Linux switches.

  • I thought,Linux was ready for the enterpise since Kernel 1.7.0.1-D.
  • Borg (Score:2, Interesting)

    by frozencesium (591780)
    At least MS didn't assimilate them...

    seriously though...the switching to linux by bigger and more mainstream companies has always been a topic arround here. the comments will come about how linux "is finaly making it". i guess people ARE starting to realize that there are some benifits not paying the SGI premium prices to do awesome 3d rendering, compositing, rotoscoping, etc. don't get my wrong, i love sgi hardware...but i hate the price.

    -frozen
  • pfff (Score:5, Funny)

    by grub (11606) <slashdot@grub.net> on Sunday December 08, 2002 @12:30PM (#4838048) Homepage Journal

    Rendering pretty pictures is oh-so-boring. I'd like to sit in front of a mic at a console, utter the command "Make it sew!" then watch a beowulf cluster of Singers make the whole crew wardrobe in 4 minutes, including the time needed for Troi's custom boob expansion panels.

  • by dubbayu_d_40 (622643) on Sunday December 08, 2002 @12:35PM (#4838087)
    of it crashing at the box office?
  • by BoomerSooner (308737) on Sunday December 08, 2002 @12:38PM (#4838103) Homepage Journal
    Titanic. It was on the cover of Linux Journal back in 98/99 or whenever it came out. At the time I was astounded at what they did. Now it's getting redundant (as are these articles).

    Don't go to their website though. It's slower than crap.
    • What's so "astounding" about it? Linux is just an operating system. It runs programs. It provides disk I/O. It does not do rendering. It's the applications that do anything "astounding".

      In other words, all this really proves is that the operating system is pretty much irrelevent for this sort of work, not that Linux is particularly suited to it (other than being inexpensive).

    • This weeks TV Guide [tvguide.com] has 4 different covers for this Star Trek movie - it's one of those plastic sheets where the picture changes as you move it around. (what do you call those anyway?)
  • by mikael (484) on Sunday December 08, 2002 @12:39PM (#4838112)
    Moving a renderfarm to a Linux cluster isn't surprising. Since rendering is an "Embarrassingly parallel" computation and AMD/Intel has more FLOPS/$ compared to the MIPS processors, this is expected. When you need to pass a lot of data between processors, you'll need one of those Origin 3000 [sgi.com] servers with 1000 processors. Linux can't do this yet.

    What is interesting though, is that they moved the workstation applications from SGI to Linux. I didn't know that the SGI hardware was lagging behind that much.
    • i work for a video effects company in new york. IMHO it's not that the SGI's are that much behind in processing speed it's the cost of one of there systems. a complete Octane2 can run you around $50K to even $100K+ for our highend systems. when you are doing 3D animation with Maya or XSI or something most people have to make the decision between getting a balls out intel system versus a SGI Octane2. now the Octane2 is most likely superior than the intel machine in a design sense(those things are built like a tank!), but you have to ask do you need all of the features that the Octane2 offers to do 3D animation? in our case, most rendeing is done on the farm anyway so no not really.

      we use the intel machines, and soon OSX machines, for the artists to work and model on. we use the Octane2 to do the heavy real-time compositing stuff using flame, inferno etc.

  • Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by fizban (58094) <fizban@umich.edu> on Sunday December 08, 2002 @12:39PM (#4838114) Homepage
    I guess this just give more validity to the "Microsoft as Borg" line of thinking...

    and giving plenty more tag-lines to Linux PR - "Who's handling your Enterprise software these days? Linux, where no company has gone before."

    Urghh.... Must... Stop... Stupid... Puns... Kill... Timothy... for... starting... it...
  • by DarkVein (5418) on Sunday December 08, 2002 @12:43PM (#4838133) Journal

    Allow me to present this as timothy should have.

    Mike McCune writes
    "The "Linux Journal" has a nice article about the switch from Irix to Linux at Digital Domain and the use of Linux in 'Star Trek, Nemesis.' I guess this means that Linux is finally ready for ------[Pun censored, humanity saved]."
  • "Posted on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 by Robin Rowe"

    Er, would that be Stardate 2003.1
  • Well then who makes it now?
  • I always thought it they used a video camera for movies.... Im going to use linux to create my next movie! DAMN the MPAA!
  • by ath0mic (519762) on Sunday December 08, 2002 @01:00PM (#4838232)

    I guess this means that Linux is finally ready for 'The Enterprise.'

    .. so that only took 300 years or so.
  • Wow! What astounds me isn't that Ernest Glitch invented time travel, but that he works as a copy editor at Linux Journal.
  • by SensitiveMale (155605) on Sunday December 08, 2002 @01:17PM (#4838313)
    It does seem as if the plot and story were created on a 286.
    • Yes, seeing as some of the greatest movies of all time were written on a typewriter, I don't imagine word processing on a 286 would be so bad...
      • Yes, seeing as some of the greatest movies of all time were written on a typewriter, I don't imagine word processing on a 286 would be so bad...

        You are missing the joke.

        At this time, the 286 is a piss-poor processor. And one of the great things about linux is that it can run under sub-par equipment.

        At this time, the story for Nemesis is a piss-poor story.

        So my joke was since they are using sub-par equipment they wrote a sub-par story.

        See the connection?

        Unless you think I was referring to ALL works done on a 286 or less are bad. And why in the world would you think that?
        • At this time, the story for Nemesis is a piss-poor story.

          Actually, the real joke is that Nemesis isn't even in theatres yet, and you're already saying it's piss-poor.

          Save your judgement until after it has received wide release.

  • Ever seen Star Trek IV where Scotty sits down and talks into the mouse?
    "Computer.... .... Hello Computer?"

    Other guy: "*ahem* you have to use the keyboard."

    "KEYBOARD?! How quaint."
  • The Enterprise is from the future..and Linux is the OS of the future!
  • by notlameness (632398) on Sunday December 08, 2002 @02:00PM (#4838573)
    so by this communities standards, everything trek that has gone before sucks and everything going forward is uber cool because the drawings were rendered on a nice open operating system, using closed source software on closed source hardware to make a movie for profit rather than a closed operating system on closed rendering software on closed hardware .

    Such a fickle bunch.
  • by sstory (538486)
    I should have guessed that linux was used by Star Trek. Just look at that horrible "lcars" interface. An ugly, poorly-designed, garish interface is a dead giveaway that linux is involved.
  • by raytracer (51035) on Sunday December 08, 2002 @03:15PM (#4839081)
    Significant quantities of caffeinated cola beverages were used to enable the delivery of effects on Star Trek: Nemesis. Lead technical director I. M. Tyred was quoted as saying:
    If it weren't for Coke, Jolt and No-Doze, there is no way we could have finished this stuff on time. We also credit various snack cakes, particularly those made by Hostess, except for those Pink Snowballs, they suck.
    Industry insiders claim that improvements in snack cake and cola technology will soon make the delivery of films with entirely synthetic cast members possible in the next decade, eliminating the need for traditional actors entirely.
  • by IRNI (5906) <irniNO@SPAMirni.net> on Sunday December 08, 2002 @04:20PM (#4839595) Homepage
    in the 25th century, the 14.2.22 kernel is used in the warp drive controller. Linus' frozen head was the lead developer on the warp engine software. You didn't think you could get from here to the other side of the galaxy on Windows did you? :)
  • by Tablizer (95088) on Sunday December 08, 2002 @06:04PM (#4840307) Journal
    the Bird of Prey is now a Giant Penguin
  • by isorox (205688)
    Hmm, an article on star trek and still no word from CleverNickName - I guess he doesnt need any more karma today........
  • When making perf. statements these kind of articles are always misleading. They upgraded from old SGI hardware running IRIX to new *whatever* hardware running LINUX. Yeah, I'm sure all your perf. belong to LINUX.

"Never ascribe to malice that which is caused by greed and ignorance." -- Cal Keegan

Working...