Did we really need someone to go out and test how Vista runs on old hardware? I mean really. Microsoft gave us the minimum requirements long ago and we all realized that our less than a year old computers wouldn't cut it for the fully blown eye-candy versions. If they say minimum of 1GB of RAM for Pro, we all know that really means 2GB to run it well, I don't think we need someone to do an experiment on a 256MB machine to realize that Vista is a RAM hog.
Plus, it has been pointed out numerous times that no one will really be upgrading to Vista on their current hardware, but will rather buy a new computer with it pre-installed.
On another note, this definitely doesn't bode well for Vista on the server. Or at least I hope that sysadmins realize this. While I'm sure nobody will be turning on the extra eye-candy for server use (at least I hope not), the UI is still going to be more resource hungry than Win2003. All of us Linux users have probably all looked at the differences in RAM usage when X isn't running at all with a very plain black command line as the only visuals. A lot of the software running on a server doesn't need any kind of easy GUI because once set up properly, it just runs and runs and runs, using lots of resources and having very little further human interaction. Apps that do this would benefit from every resource it can get. The less alocated to the OS the better.
But lower population density doesn't actually matter that much, since not only aren't there any marked differences with regards to suburbs, but because the telephone and TV cables through which to offer broadband are already installed. Few people live in ranches 30 miles from the nearest center of civilization, where the population density is pronounced and acquiring a broadband connection could actually be a problem.
Two problems with this argument:
1. Maintenance
Despite the fact that the infastructure is already there, there is a lot more of it to maintain, thus the higher costs.
2. Fiber Optics
Right now, the current infastructure in place (at least the older infrastructure) is limited in its broadband capacity. POTS lines can only give you so many megabits per second. Cable TV lines can do a lot better, but are still capped. In order to get to where the broadband leaders are, you need to replace all of the old infrastructure with fiber optics. You can't get Gigabit to the home with the current lines, so you need to put in something that can. That is currently what Verizon and the cable providers are trying to do right now, mainly so that the telcos can offer triple play services just like the cable companies, only a hell of a lot faster. This has been slow, though, and it will be some time until the US can compete with the numbers of the broadband leaders.
In the time it took you to submit an AskSlashdot and then read all of the responses, you could have found out who is on the ballots and looked up where they stand on issues. In fact, all of the candidates have a campaign website stating their positions. Why are you wasting your time asking whether you should vote ignorant or not vote at all, when you could be solving your problem of ignorance.
STOP READING SLASHDOT AND START READING ABOUT THE CANDIDATES. YOU STILL HAVE 3 HOURS ON THE EAST COAST, MORE IF YOU'RE WEST OF THAT.
Another thing to keep in mind here, is that the guitarist who wrote the song and performs it live on a regular basis, does not perform it as it was on the studio recording. Listen to live recordngs and studio recordings back to back and notice the differences aside from just guitar solos and extra flare thrown in. Often the tempo is different or they switch into a whole new key at some point. This is what makes seeing live bands so exciting. The guitarist probably has not played it as it was "meant" to be in a long time, so he/she might struggle a little.
Interesting Who fact: The Who's bassist John Entwistle improvised the bass solo in "My Generation" on the spot when it was recorded in the studio. He has since, never been able to reproduce the solo live, although claims he has tried time and again by request. (RIP John, you were the man)
First off, if you see a listing that says x - x+2 years experience and you have none, apply anyway. "Experience" does not always mean "I have been out in the working world with a 9-5 job doing X for Y years. Sometimes it means that you have been using the technology (paid or unpaid) for that number of years.
Next, if all you do in College is get your degree with good grades, it will not do you any good. People all say "just get the piece of paper, that's all that matters", but that is complete BS. If you get internships for one or two years of your college career, you are in good shape. You have EXPERIENCE! You have a FOOT IN THE DOOR (it's not always what you know, but who you know). Plus you have had practice with interviewing, so when it comes time for the big ones, you will be more prepared.
Finally, tech support is not the only thing out there, not by a long-shot, for the fresh out of college. The path I took was consulting, and man was that a good decision. I was MIS, graduated last spring and had a job lined up since last thanksgiving. Consulting firms have a high turnover of people, which is good for the recent grad, cause that means they want YOU! As far as money, you are very likely to be making more than 40k, but not limited to. That's actually about the lowest I have heard from fellow grads going into consulting. The best part, is most consulting companies have a clear path defined for promotion/raises, so if you are committed, you will rise up quickly.
A few caveats for consulting though. Travel- it's pretty much 100% unless you are lucky enough to have a project you can commute to. Currently I'm on such a project which is nice, but otherwise, you will be in a hotel monday through thursday/friday and home on the weekends. The hours can be crazy, but that is also dependent on the project and ALL IT jobs can be like that. Like I said earlier, the turnover in consulting is higher than other IT areas and many people get burnt out from the travel/hours and leave after maybe two years, but by that point, you have gotten exposure with a bunch of companies and gained that valuable experience you are seeking.
I am sorry that you feel like linux users are all snobs and have no friends but other linux users, this is not true for everyone, including myself. In fact I a have very few friends who actually do use linux.
As for your ease of use argument, SUSE is not the only distro out there that offers this, and that is what my main point was. I apologize if I came of as being aggressive towards SUSE users, but what I was getting at is that there are other distros that offer all of the great things that SUSE offers, but who are not possibly compromising their OSS and Linux values by partnering with Microsoft. Ease of use is one of the top goals of many linux distributions such as Ubuntu, Mandriva and to a lesser extent Fedora. You answered your own compaint by saying RPMS make software installation easier. RPMS are not the only solution. SUSE has YAST, Ubuntu (and other Debian derivitives) have apt-get w/ Synaptic and there are others. I understand that your wife should not be expected to know how to compile software or even know what it means. That is why I do not suggest giving your wife something like gentoo or slackware. Keep in mind as well, there are plenty of Windows users out there that do not know how to install software in Windows. I have met quite a few. It's not a fear of the OS, it's a fear of the machine and an unwillingness to learn regardless of what that machine is running.
As for the new alliance with Microsoft, I am not saying that this is bad because I want everyone to know how to do everything the hard way and edit config files. I welcome changes that would help Linux better interoperate with other OS's, but these changes should not go against the core reasons for Linux's existence and the reasons we all use it. At the heart of this is Open Source, having a choice in your OS and even further in the flavor of that OS (read distributions). There is a different linux for everyone, and Microsoft wishes to change that. While it may not hold up in court, Microsoft has displayed intentions of suing other distros that use any of the interoperability features that have been co-developed by MS and Novell which is the most backward thing that could happen in the Linux world.
Chill out, I know you like SUSE, and I can't make you stop using it, but all I'm suggesting is that, given the other comparable distros out there, we don't necessarily need SUSE.
I knew this comment would come from someone, but obviously you have been using just SUSE for a long time. There are very similar offerings with other distros. like Synaptic on top of apt-get and frontends for yum in Fedora (i like Synaptic better though). There are many others too. I have not used SUSE personally, so i don' know how Yast compares, but even if it is so much better, I dont' see it being a hard job to bring the others up to par
This is a call to action for every free software loving Linux user out there. SUSE IS DEAD TO US. WE HAVE NO SUSE! I encourage all to cease and desist use of SUSE distributions as well as contribution to the SUSE projects. Ok so this is really a boycott, and yes boycotts aren't usually very successful, but there is a difference here. SUSE currently does not offer anything so uniquely different that we could not go without it, or make it difficult to go without it. I am sure all of you SUSE fans out there have very legitimate reasons for loving SUSE, but those features, benefits could easily spawn themselves in a new distro, or be integrated into another distro like *ubuntu or a member of the Red Hat family. If Novell wants to dance with the devil in the pale moonlight, then so be it, but the rest of the Linux community will not be in attendance.
FUCK YOU NOVELL! Turn your back on us and we'll walk right out the door.
Boo Hoo to all of you developers out there that are hating this idea because "do you reallize how much extra work I'll have to do!??!!" This is a pretty dumb reason. When the Sarbanes-Oxley went into effect, how many companies were pissed because of the extra money they had to spend on auditing and fixing their financials to be compliant? Just about all of them. Does this mean the law was bad? Absolutely not. Any law that enforces accountablility for the accuracy of a company's financials is a good one. Is this ADA law a bad idea? Not at all. The web is a big part of everyone's lives now, including the disabled. Not happy about all of the extra work you'll have to do? Then how about you start charging more for sites since it will take you longer and hire more developers to work on it and test it. If you look closely, a lot of "compliance" laws end up making people more money. SOX gave auditers and IT consulting companies record profits. How about you start offering compliance services to sites that aren't compliant? You could charge a pretty penny for that, or recommend a new site from the ground up made by yours-truly.
Imagine if we never enacted any quality control or safety laws because "oh my god do you know how much work that would be!?"
This information would be interesting, but there are too many variables involved to make any kind of conclusions about which voting methods actually lean in any particular way. The problem is that the various types of voting methods are not evenly distributed among all states and districts. For instance, the district that I am currently registered in is a very republican district, yet it is in a consistently blue state. This district, to the best of my knowledge, has usually had "cutting edge" voting booths. My first memories were mechanical lever, and by the time I was in Jr. High, they had electronic machines that were essentially a white board with a light next to the candidate you voted for (last i voted in a booth, this was still in use, although I've been voting absentee for the past four years. Tomorrow will be my first time in a booth in some time, so we'll see what I get). So someone looking at my district would be able to say that "District X" uses electronic machines and leans to the right, with an overwhelming number of "straight" ballots. There must be a defect! Well no, it just turns out that the voters in District X are all C-level execs for major multi-national corporations who have always voted republican in every election since becoming rich and moving to the area (which is the true case).
While this may be a good idea, a company has to be VERY careful in doing this. We are not talking about protecting trademarks, where if you don't enforce it you lose it. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act is a pr0n addicted worker's best friend in this situation. You cannot actively monitor an employee's electronic communications (e-mail, web surfing) unless the employees are fully aware that they are being monitored and have agreed to this by signing an agreement or if the company suspects that the employee is involved in nefarious behavior that compromises the security of the company and it's intellectual property (we're talking corporate espionage here). Most companies will passively monitor, which means that the packet sniffer or what have you logs activity for every user, but no one is keeping track of it in real time. If they have reason to believe someone is doing something they shouldn't be, they can then go back in the logs and take a peak, but once again, the ECPA may have something to say about this as well.
NOTE: I Am Not A Layer and the contents and meanings of the ECPA have only been explained by a business policy professor to me. If there are any lawyers out there who can weigh in on this please do. I won't be offended if I am proven completely wrong.
Did anyone else see the Daily Show interview with one of Suddam Hussein's former employee's (i say employee cause i can't remember if he was a general or what) where he pretty much said, "I saw the WMD's as they were dismantled and transported out of the country." Sorry I'm short on details (don't remember the guys name or the date that it aired, i think last spring), but essentially he confirmed that the WMD's did exist, but they got rid of them before the invasion.
While the prediction may have been made back in 1996, there is a distinct difference between 1996 and 2006. 1996 did not offer anything close to the bandwidth necessary to support a thin client (we now have fiber into the home thanks to things like FiOS) and there were no companies hosting applications like google has done with its word processor and spreadsheet apps.
This whole battle really pisses me off because the whole reason we have 2 "standards" is because Sony and their opponents want to control the "standard" and thus control how we watch movies. I really wish some people would come in as a third independent party with a high definition digital video OPEN standard. If an open standard were to hit the streets, barring any corporate strongarming, all manufacturers other than those that own the proprietary standards would drop blue-ray and HD-DVD immediately for the cheaper open standard. Sony would of course try to keep pushing blue ray, but other electronics manufacturers would gladly go with an open standard if that means there is no licensing costs creating barriers to entry. Furthermore, the consumer would benefit because there would be no DRM restricting the use of the media and most importantly, we would have one standard for all to use. Maybe it's just a pipe dream, but does open source have the time, energy, know-how, funding for this kind of R&D? If so (and I really hope so) I would gladly donate to such a project and support it in any ways I can. Is there anybody out there that thinks they can do this?
I doubt most iPod + iTunes users even reallize that it will be very difficult to switch to a new servic or device. Most are accustomed to the MP3 idea where you actually possess the digital copy on your hard drive completely unrestricted. They don't realize that those iTunes songs won't play on other devices or that other music stores' songs won't play on their iPod. The idea of DRM is very foreign outside of the Slashdot circle. Most will switch and then bitch that it doesn't work and then do one of three things:
1. Switch right back to the old waybr>
2. Come to one of us to break the DRM for them
3. Re-purchase all of their music under the new DRMed "standard"
Option number three is probably a record exec's wet dream.
Ok so a lot of you are griping cause this article told you that you're baby is ugly and you may have every right to be mad. A lot of the points the author makes can be pointed at Windows as well. However, there is an aspect of Linux that is not very user friendly that relates to usability for new users. This is the documentation. Now not all is bad, but more often than not, I come across a project site on SourcForge that is written in linux geek-speak. Now I have been using linux for about three years now and can understand this strange language, but someone coming from the windows world would be completely lost. For example, I recently switched the girlfriend over to linux and soon afterwards I had to leave town for work. She was interested in installing a text-to-speech tool. I didn't have much experience with these tools in linux, but I was easily able to walk her through opening up the GUI package manager and searching text-to-speech and finding two results. Festival sounded like what she needed, so it was then just a matter of checking off "festival" and clicking apply. Then came the tricky part. It turned out this was a command line tool (very scary for someone new to linux and not a windows power user). Furthermore, since I didn't have prior experience with the program, nor did i have a computer in front of me, all I could tell her was to Google the program and find some documentation. This led her to the project's official page where she was bombarded with all kinds of programming and linux jargon that she became a deer in the headlights and just waited for my return so I could tinker with it. While this is just one program and it is not hugely common one, this is still the case with many other programs. The big ones have great docs like OOo and others, but the smaller projects are very off-putting to new users. Going forward I ask all developers that when they create documentation for your open source projects, that all documentation, no matter what stage of the project you are in, be in plain english that anyone can understand. This can only increase the popularity of your projects by allowing more people to understand what it is you are doing and thus allowing those people to help support you in whatever way they can, whether it just be using the software or having a significant role in developing it.
In that case, why don't we switch to an election process that mimics a reality show. All candidates that throw their hats in the ring will be filmed by a camera crew during all aspects of their daily lives. That means if they are currently an elected official, you get to see what they do on the job and you get to see what kind of person they are off the job (do they fly off the handle easily? Are they good husbands/wives?). The on the job footage would be great because you could see for yourself what bills they voted for or didn't vote for (and most importantly WHY they voted this way) instead of their opponent informing you that they voted against sending more body armor to the troops with no other explanation than they hate America (when in reality, it was probably because there was a "rider" attached that legalized feeding live babies to tigers for entertainment purposes [OK maybe not that, but you get the idea]). The show would be long enough so that the candidates start forgetting about the cameras, or even continues after they are already elected to help keep them in line. The only problem with this is that reality shows must be edited into a show, and creative editing can make Satan himself look like Jesus on camera or the other way around. I'm sure someone could figure out a way around this problem, though. I'm usually not one for reality TV, but as someone who tries to be somewhat politically concious, I would probably watch it so that come election day, I can make a more informed decision.
I can second this claim. My father is an engineer who works for an insurance company that focuses exclusively on on commercial and industrial property (lots of factories and office buildings). Because they are the only company that focuses solely on this type of insureance, they were begged by the owner of the WTC to insure them. They were the only company with enough capital to insure everything on their own. After heading up an engineering analysis on the buildings my father was adament about NOT insuring the buildings. While many wanted the client because of the high profile, the fact remained that the buildings were an engineering and fire-prevention/protection nightmare. As stated in the parent, the overall structural design was poor. Also, when the buildings were first erected (he he, i said erected) a sprinkler system was not installed. To meet fire codes later implemented, the ended up punching holes in the firewalls between the floors in order to install the sprinklers. This meant that the fire-prevention method that came stock with the building was now rendered useless and fires could jump between floors. Since the company would not insure the buildings, the owners had to split the policy among multiple companies. While my father's company never forsaw something on the scale of 911, in retrospect it was a pretty smart decision. Most of the insurance companies that were splitting the WTC policy went bankrupt because they could not afford the payout. Even still, my father's company lost some employees who were at a meeting that fatefull day at the towers (because of inter-company politics, my father did not attend that meeting).
While the 640KB comment is certainly valid in this discussion, you have to consider that it is only valid if the way we use computers continues along the same path as it has in the past. By this I mean being focused on desktop power (Fat clients). As the communications infrastructure becomes faster and more reliable with things like fiber optics directly into your home, and companies like Google beginning to push the online services and application service provider models, a thin client is going to become more realistic for many. Now I am not saying that everyone will be switching (particulary the slashdot crowd), but for the average home user, they don't have the need for a fat client and a thin client would be much cheaper and easier to manage. A thin client needs very minimal processing power as well as minimal power in other respects and has no need for multi-core (or even the power current single cores offer). The power needs to be placed in the server side. As the client becomes thinner, the server will need to become faster to handle the amount of people accessing applications from them. The quad core processors will be excellent for these purposes. Even today though, people are always making the argument "Why do we need quad core on our desktops right now, applications aren't designed to use them." Unfortunately that argument is very short sighted because the real market for multi-core processors is in the server market. You need multi-core for running databases, applications servers, web servers, etc. especially as more emphasis is being placed on the server.
Right now there is an advertising exec reading this thread crapping his pants because he just heard about the technology us geeks have been using all along to undermine what he does. Then he happens across this great suggestion for "stickin' it to the girly man" (My phrase, but you can use it cause you'll probably rip it off anyway). It's bad enough shows have to advertise for the network on the bottom of the screen. It started with an innocent little banner, then the banner started moving, now it moves and makes noise and covers up the subtitle/on-screen text (this must affect "Law and Order" fans the most). Now you're suggesting that this continue through the entire broadcast? Son of a bitch! I hate watching 24hour news channels cause I can't focus on the anchor with all of the tickers going, how am i suppose to follow a complicated plot or catch a site gag when i'm staring at the top of the screen at an add for Pepsi.
I would much rather having product placement, but not obvious and cheesy like "Wayne's World" or like in "The Truman Show". Product placement makes for more realistic settings in the show. For example, when a character drinks a beverage, he or she is drinking a Coke or a Pepsi or a Heineken, not a plain can that says "Soda" or "Beer" on it. When was the last time you used "Fabric Softener Brand" fabric softener? This would be perfect for image conscious products like sunglasses, phones and cars. Making sure that the logo is visible is all you need for an effective product placement. Think about how many more Trans-Ams (or was it a Camarro) that Pontiac (or was it Chevy) would have sold had they made it obvious that KnightRider's car was a Pontiac Trans Am (or was it Chevy Camarro).
The article mentioned a future feature of having an LED flashlight. Now there is a feature I would actually want. Ingenious! How many times have we all tried to use the phones backlit display as a flashlight, why not go all the way and it's so damn simple to implement. Whenever you need a flahslight, you never seem to have one. Cell phone companies (I'm looking at you Motorola, LG, Nokia, etc.) please put this in your phones, be they relatively featureless or featurful. The utility of this far exceeds an mp3 player or video player.
OK I've been reading through this thread and I'm getting a little annoyed. Every other post I see is that "Maybe if there was more than one good song on the album, I'd buy it" crap. Ok for a lot of music out there this is true, but if you also pay attention, you will also realize that the one or two songs that are supposedly good are in fact utter dog shit. I guess I'm a little more critical of music. When I hear a catchy song, I recognize the fact that it is a catchy song and not really a good song. A catchy song means that there probably aren't any good songs on the album and the likelyhood of a second catchy song is slim. Buy an album by someone who puts out a song that is truly good, and by good, I mean is unique and requires talent to produce (both lyrically and instrumentally) and you will find that there are a lot of songs on that album that is just as good if not better (I'm one of those people that kinda likes the ten minute epic towards the end of the album that radio will never touch). I'm a very passive listener when it comes to CD's. I pop the cd in the car stereo and it will play until the album is over. Some I like, some I don't like, but overall I have a good idea of how talented the artist is. How can you say an artist is good when all you have heard is one song? One hit wonders get remembered for their songs, but no one remembers who performed it, and then some other band comes along and does a cover and the one hit wonder is forgotten, obscured by the shitty (usually) knock-off.
Ok I kinda went on a long rant there (and i don't feel like proof-reading so deal with it), but my point is that people really should think about listening to entire albums again. This is something that has been lost on the CD generation, and now even more on the internet download generation. Now I respect everybody's choice to listen to whatever they want however they want, but I think some of you out there will get a great experience out of listening to an album in it's entirety and have a better idea of what makes a good artist vs. a bad artist.
To give you a little background on what music I think is good:
1. Listening to a single track of Pink Floyd's Dark side of Moon is a crime against humanity.
2. I you ask me what my favorite Led Zeppelin song is (or album) you will get an answer that goes on for about an hour. I don't think I can narrow it down to fifteen.
3. Artists should (and do) earn their living by touring and performing live, and a good artist will not perform any of their songs in the same manner as they were performed on the album. I bought the album, I might have seen the video, so why did i come here?
Slashdot Mirror
Did we really need someone to go out and test how Vista runs on old hardware? I mean really. Microsoft gave us the minimum requirements long ago and we all realized that our less than a year old computers wouldn't cut it for the fully blown eye-candy versions. If they say minimum of 1GB of RAM for Pro, we all know that really means 2GB to run it well, I don't think we need someone to do an experiment on a 256MB machine to realize that Vista is a RAM hog.
Plus, it has been pointed out numerous times that no one will really be upgrading to Vista on their current hardware, but will rather buy a new computer with it pre-installed.
On another note, this definitely doesn't bode well for Vista on the server. Or at least I hope that sysadmins realize this. While I'm sure nobody will be turning on the extra eye-candy for server use (at least I hope not), the UI is still going to be more resource hungry than Win2003. All of us Linux users have probably all looked at the differences in RAM usage when X isn't running at all with a very plain black command line as the only visuals. A lot of the software running on a server doesn't need any kind of easy GUI because once set up properly, it just runs and runs and runs, using lots of resources and having very little further human interaction. Apps that do this would benefit from every resource it can get. The less alocated to the OS the better.
1. Maintenance
Despite the fact that the infastructure is already there, there is a lot more of it to maintain, thus the higher costs.
2. Fiber Optics
Right now, the current infastructure in place (at least the older infrastructure) is limited in its broadband capacity. POTS lines can only give you so many megabits per second. Cable TV lines can do a lot better, but are still capped. In order to get to where the broadband leaders are, you need to replace all of the old infrastructure with fiber optics. You can't get Gigabit to the home with the current lines, so you need to put in something that can. That is currently what Verizon and the cable providers are trying to do right now, mainly so that the telcos can offer triple play services just like the cable companies, only a hell of a lot faster. This has been slow, though, and it will be some time until the US can compete with the numbers of the broadband leaders.
In the time it took you to submit an AskSlashdot and then read all of the responses, you could have found out who is on the ballots and looked up where they stand on issues. In fact, all of the candidates have a campaign website stating their positions. Why are you wasting your time asking whether you should vote ignorant or not vote at all, when you could be solving your problem of ignorance.
STOP READING SLASHDOT AND START READING ABOUT THE CANDIDATES. YOU STILL HAVE 3 HOURS ON THE EAST COAST, MORE IF YOU'RE WEST OF THAT.
Another thing to keep in mind here, is that the guitarist who wrote the song and performs it live on a regular basis, does not perform it as it was on the studio recording. Listen to live recordngs and studio recordings back to back and notice the differences aside from just guitar solos and extra flare thrown in. Often the tempo is different or they switch into a whole new key at some point. This is what makes seeing live bands so exciting. The guitarist probably has not played it as it was "meant" to be in a long time, so he/she might struggle a little.
Interesting Who fact: The Who's bassist John Entwistle improvised the bass solo in "My Generation" on the spot when it was recorded in the studio. He has since, never been able to reproduce the solo live, although claims he has tried time and again by request. (RIP John, you were the man)
First off, if you see a listing that says x - x+2 years experience and you have none, apply anyway. "Experience" does not always mean "I have been out in the working world with a 9-5 job doing X for Y years. Sometimes it means that you have been using the technology (paid or unpaid) for that number of years.
Next, if all you do in College is get your degree with good grades, it will not do you any good. People all say "just get the piece of paper, that's all that matters", but that is complete BS. If you get internships for one or two years of your college career, you are in good shape. You have EXPERIENCE! You have a FOOT IN THE DOOR (it's not always what you know, but who you know). Plus you have had practice with interviewing, so when it comes time for the big ones, you will be more prepared.
Finally, tech support is not the only thing out there, not by a long-shot, for the fresh out of college. The path I took was consulting, and man was that a good decision. I was MIS, graduated last spring and had a job lined up since last thanksgiving. Consulting firms have a high turnover of people, which is good for the recent grad, cause that means they want YOU! As far as money, you are very likely to be making more than 40k, but not limited to. That's actually about the lowest I have heard from fellow grads going into consulting. The best part, is most consulting companies have a clear path defined for promotion/raises, so if you are committed, you will rise up quickly.
A few caveats for consulting though. Travel- it's pretty much 100% unless you are lucky enough to have a project you can commute to. Currently I'm on such a project which is nice, but otherwise, you will be in a hotel monday through thursday/friday and home on the weekends. The hours can be crazy, but that is also dependent on the project and ALL IT jobs can be like that. Like I said earlier, the turnover in consulting is higher than other IT areas and many people get burnt out from the travel/hours and leave after maybe two years, but by that point, you have gotten exposure with a bunch of companies and gained that valuable experience you are seeking.
I am sorry that you feel like linux users are all snobs and have no friends but other linux users, this is not true for everyone, including myself. In fact I a have very few friends who actually do use linux.
As for your ease of use argument, SUSE is not the only distro out there that offers this, and that is what my main point was. I apologize if I came of as being aggressive towards SUSE users, but what I was getting at is that there are other distros that offer all of the great things that SUSE offers, but who are not possibly compromising their OSS and Linux values by partnering with Microsoft. Ease of use is one of the top goals of many linux distributions such as Ubuntu, Mandriva and to a lesser extent Fedora. You answered your own compaint by saying RPMS make software installation easier. RPMS are not the only solution. SUSE has YAST, Ubuntu (and other Debian derivitives) have apt-get w/ Synaptic and there are others. I understand that your wife should not be expected to know how to compile software or even know what it means. That is why I do not suggest giving your wife something like gentoo or slackware. Keep in mind as well, there are plenty of Windows users out there that do not know how to install software in Windows. I have met quite a few. It's not a fear of the OS, it's a fear of the machine and an unwillingness to learn regardless of what that machine is running.
As for the new alliance with Microsoft, I am not saying that this is bad because I want everyone to know how to do everything the hard way and edit config files. I welcome changes that would help Linux better interoperate with other OS's, but these changes should not go against the core reasons for Linux's existence and the reasons we all use it. At the heart of this is Open Source, having a choice in your OS and even further in the flavor of that OS (read distributions). There is a different linux for everyone, and Microsoft wishes to change that. While it may not hold up in court, Microsoft has displayed intentions of suing other distros that use any of the interoperability features that have been co-developed by MS and Novell which is the most backward thing that could happen in the Linux world.
Chill out, I know you like SUSE, and I can't make you stop using it, but all I'm suggesting is that, given the other comparable distros out there, we don't necessarily need SUSE.
I knew this comment would come from someone, but obviously you have been using just SUSE for a long time. There are very similar offerings with other distros. like Synaptic on top of apt-get and frontends for yum in Fedora (i like Synaptic better though). There are many others too. I have not used SUSE personally, so i don' know how Yast compares, but even if it is so much better, I dont' see it being a hard job to bring the others up to par
This is a call to action for every free software loving Linux user out there. SUSE IS DEAD TO US. WE HAVE NO SUSE! I encourage all to cease and desist use of SUSE distributions as well as contribution to the SUSE projects. Ok so this is really a boycott, and yes boycotts aren't usually very successful, but there is a difference here. SUSE currently does not offer anything so uniquely different that we could not go without it, or make it difficult to go without it. I am sure all of you SUSE fans out there have very legitimate reasons for loving SUSE, but those features, benefits could easily spawn themselves in a new distro, or be integrated into another distro like *ubuntu or a member of the Red Hat family. If Novell wants to dance with the devil in the pale moonlight, then so be it, but the rest of the Linux community will not be in attendance.
FUCK YOU NOVELL! Turn your back on us and we'll walk right out the door.
Boo Hoo to all of you developers out there that are hating this idea because "do you reallize how much extra work I'll have to do!??!!" This is a pretty dumb reason. When the Sarbanes-Oxley went into effect, how many companies were pissed because of the extra money they had to spend on auditing and fixing their financials to be compliant? Just about all of them. Does this mean the law was bad? Absolutely not. Any law that enforces accountablility for the accuracy of a company's financials is a good one. Is this ADA law a bad idea? Not at all. The web is a big part of everyone's lives now, including the disabled. Not happy about all of the extra work you'll have to do? Then how about you start charging more for sites since it will take you longer and hire more developers to work on it and test it. If you look closely, a lot of "compliance" laws end up making people more money. SOX gave auditers and IT consulting companies record profits. How about you start offering compliance services to sites that aren't compliant? You could charge a pretty penny for that, or recommend a new site from the ground up made by yours-truly.
Imagine if we never enacted any quality control or safety laws because "oh my god do you know how much work that would be!?"
This information would be interesting, but there are too many variables involved to make any kind of conclusions about which voting methods actually lean in any particular way. The problem is that the various types of voting methods are not evenly distributed among all states and districts. For instance, the district that I am currently registered in is a very republican district, yet it is in a consistently blue state. This district, to the best of my knowledge, has usually had "cutting edge" voting booths. My first memories were mechanical lever, and by the time I was in Jr. High, they had electronic machines that were essentially a white board with a light next to the candidate you voted for (last i voted in a booth, this was still in use, although I've been voting absentee for the past four years. Tomorrow will be my first time in a booth in some time, so we'll see what I get). So someone looking at my district would be able to say that "District X" uses electronic machines and leans to the right, with an overwhelming number of "straight" ballots. There must be a defect! Well no, it just turns out that the voters in District X are all C-level execs for major multi-national corporations who have always voted republican in every election since becoming rich and moving to the area (which is the true case).
While this may be a good idea, a company has to be VERY careful in doing this. We are not talking about protecting trademarks, where if you don't enforce it you lose it. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act is a pr0n addicted worker's best friend in this situation. You cannot actively monitor an employee's electronic communications (e-mail, web surfing) unless the employees are fully aware that they are being monitored and have agreed to this by signing an agreement or if the company suspects that the employee is involved in nefarious behavior that compromises the security of the company and it's intellectual property (we're talking corporate espionage here). Most companies will passively monitor, which means that the packet sniffer or what have you logs activity for every user, but no one is keeping track of it in real time. If they have reason to believe someone is doing something they shouldn't be, they can then go back in the logs and take a peak, but once again, the ECPA may have something to say about this as well.
NOTE: I Am Not A Layer and the contents and meanings of the ECPA have only been explained by a business policy professor to me. If there are any lawyers out there who can weigh in on this please do. I won't be offended if I am proven completely wrong.
Did anyone else see the Daily Show interview with one of Suddam Hussein's former employee's (i say employee cause i can't remember if he was a general or what) where he pretty much said, "I saw the WMD's as they were dismantled and transported out of the country." Sorry I'm short on details (don't remember the guys name or the date that it aired, i think last spring), but essentially he confirmed that the WMD's did exist, but they got rid of them before the invasion.
While the prediction may have been made back in 1996, there is a distinct difference between 1996 and 2006. 1996 did not offer anything close to the bandwidth necessary to support a thin client (we now have fiber into the home thanks to things like FiOS) and there were no companies hosting applications like google has done with its word processor and spreadsheet apps.
So you can, you know...SUCK IT!
This whole battle really pisses me off because the whole reason we have 2 "standards" is because Sony and their opponents want to control the "standard" and thus control how we watch movies. I really wish some people would come in as a third independent party with a high definition digital video OPEN standard. If an open standard were to hit the streets, barring any corporate strongarming, all manufacturers other than those that own the proprietary standards would drop blue-ray and HD-DVD immediately for the cheaper open standard. Sony would of course try to keep pushing blue ray, but other electronics manufacturers would gladly go with an open standard if that means there is no licensing costs creating barriers to entry. Furthermore, the consumer would benefit because there would be no DRM restricting the use of the media and most importantly, we would have one standard for all to use. Maybe it's just a pipe dream, but does open source have the time, energy, know-how, funding for this kind of R&D? If so (and I really hope so) I would gladly donate to such a project and support it in any ways I can. Is there anybody out there that thinks they can do this?
I doubt most iPod + iTunes users even reallize that it will be very difficult to switch to a new servic or device. Most are accustomed to the MP3 idea where you actually possess the digital copy on your hard drive completely unrestricted. They don't realize that those iTunes songs won't play on other devices or that other music stores' songs won't play on their iPod. The idea of DRM is very foreign outside of the Slashdot circle. Most will switch and then bitch that it doesn't work and then do one of three things:
1. Switch right back to the old waybr> 2. Come to one of us to break the DRM for them
3. Re-purchase all of their music under the new DRMed "standard"
Option number three is probably a record exec's wet dream.
Ok so a lot of you are griping cause this article told you that you're baby is ugly and you may have every right to be mad. A lot of the points the author makes can be pointed at Windows as well. However, there is an aspect of Linux that is not very user friendly that relates to usability for new users. This is the documentation. Now not all is bad, but more often than not, I come across a project site on SourcForge that is written in linux geek-speak. Now I have been using linux for about three years now and can understand this strange language, but someone coming from the windows world would be completely lost. For example, I recently switched the girlfriend over to linux and soon afterwards I had to leave town for work. She was interested in installing a text-to-speech tool. I didn't have much experience with these tools in linux, but I was easily able to walk her through opening up the GUI package manager and searching text-to-speech and finding two results. Festival sounded like what she needed, so it was then just a matter of checking off "festival" and clicking apply. Then came the tricky part. It turned out this was a command line tool (very scary for someone new to linux and not a windows power user). Furthermore, since I didn't have prior experience with the program, nor did i have a computer in front of me, all I could tell her was to Google the program and find some documentation. This led her to the project's official page where she was bombarded with all kinds of programming and linux jargon that she became a deer in the headlights and just waited for my return so I could tinker with it. While this is just one program and it is not hugely common one, this is still the case with many other programs. The big ones have great docs like OOo and others, but the smaller projects are very off-putting to new users. Going forward I ask all developers that when they create documentation for your open source projects, that all documentation, no matter what stage of the project you are in, be in plain english that anyone can understand. This can only increase the popularity of your projects by allowing more people to understand what it is you are doing and thus allowing those people to help support you in whatever way they can, whether it just be using the software or having a significant role in developing it.
In that case, why don't we switch to an election process that mimics a reality show. All candidates that throw their hats in the ring will be filmed by a camera crew during all aspects of their daily lives. That means if they are currently an elected official, you get to see what they do on the job and you get to see what kind of person they are off the job (do they fly off the handle easily? Are they good husbands/wives?). The on the job footage would be great because you could see for yourself what bills they voted for or didn't vote for (and most importantly WHY they voted this way) instead of their opponent informing you that they voted against sending more body armor to the troops with no other explanation than they hate America (when in reality, it was probably because there was a "rider" attached that legalized feeding live babies to tigers for entertainment purposes [OK maybe not that, but you get the idea]). The show would be long enough so that the candidates start forgetting about the cameras, or even continues after they are already elected to help keep them in line. The only problem with this is that reality shows must be edited into a show, and creative editing can make Satan himself look like Jesus on camera or the other way around. I'm sure someone could figure out a way around this problem, though. I'm usually not one for reality TV, but as someone who tries to be somewhat politically concious, I would probably watch it so that come election day, I can make a more informed decision.
I can second this claim. My father is an engineer who works for an insurance company that focuses exclusively on on commercial and industrial property (lots of factories and office buildings). Because they are the only company that focuses solely on this type of insureance, they were begged by the owner of the WTC to insure them. They were the only company with enough capital to insure everything on their own. After heading up an engineering analysis on the buildings my father was adament about NOT insuring the buildings. While many wanted the client because of the high profile, the fact remained that the buildings were an engineering and fire-prevention/protection nightmare. As stated in the parent, the overall structural design was poor. Also, when the buildings were first erected (he he, i said erected) a sprinkler system was not installed. To meet fire codes later implemented, the ended up punching holes in the firewalls between the floors in order to install the sprinklers. This meant that the fire-prevention method that came stock with the building was now rendered useless and fires could jump between floors. Since the company would not insure the buildings, the owners had to split the policy among multiple companies. While my father's company never forsaw something on the scale of 911, in retrospect it was a pretty smart decision. Most of the insurance companies that were splitting the WTC policy went bankrupt because they could not afford the payout. Even still, my father's company lost some employees who were at a meeting that fatefull day at the towers (because of inter-company politics, my father did not attend that meeting).
While the 640KB comment is certainly valid in this discussion, you have to consider that it is only valid if the way we use computers continues along the same path as it has in the past. By this I mean being focused on desktop power (Fat clients). As the communications infrastructure becomes faster and more reliable with things like fiber optics directly into your home, and companies like Google beginning to push the online services and application service provider models, a thin client is going to become more realistic for many. Now I am not saying that everyone will be switching (particulary the slashdot crowd), but for the average home user, they don't have the need for a fat client and a thin client would be much cheaper and easier to manage. A thin client needs very minimal processing power as well as minimal power in other respects and has no need for multi-core (or even the power current single cores offer). The power needs to be placed in the server side. As the client becomes thinner, the server will need to become faster to handle the amount of people accessing applications from them. The quad core processors will be excellent for these purposes. Even today though, people are always making the argument "Why do we need quad core on our desktops right now, applications aren't designed to use them." Unfortunately that argument is very short sighted because the real market for multi-core processors is in the server market. You need multi-core for running databases, applications servers, web servers, etc. especially as more emphasis is being placed on the server.
If you have the ability to ask the question "Am I insane?", then you are not insane.
Right now there is an advertising exec reading this thread crapping his pants because he just heard about the technology us geeks have been using all along to undermine what he does. Then he happens across this great suggestion for "stickin' it to the girly man" (My phrase, but you can use it cause you'll probably rip it off anyway). It's bad enough shows have to advertise for the network on the bottom of the screen. It started with an innocent little banner, then the banner started moving, now it moves and makes noise and covers up the subtitle/on-screen text (this must affect "Law and Order" fans the most). Now you're suggesting that this continue through the entire broadcast? Son of a bitch! I hate watching 24hour news channels cause I can't focus on the anchor with all of the tickers going, how am i suppose to follow a complicated plot or catch a site gag when i'm staring at the top of the screen at an add for Pepsi.
I would much rather having product placement, but not obvious and cheesy like "Wayne's World" or like in "The Truman Show". Product placement makes for more realistic settings in the show. For example, when a character drinks a beverage, he or she is drinking a Coke or a Pepsi or a Heineken, not a plain can that says "Soda" or "Beer" on it. When was the last time you used "Fabric Softener Brand" fabric softener? This would be perfect for image conscious products like sunglasses, phones and cars. Making sure that the logo is visible is all you need for an effective product placement. Think about how many more Trans-Ams (or was it a Camarro) that Pontiac (or was it Chevy) would have sold had they made it obvious that KnightRider's car was a Pontiac Trans Am (or was it Chevy Camarro).
The article mentioned a future feature of having an LED flashlight. Now there is a feature I would actually want. Ingenious! How many times have we all tried to use the phones backlit display as a flashlight, why not go all the way and it's so damn simple to implement. Whenever you need a flahslight, you never seem to have one. Cell phone companies (I'm looking at you Motorola, LG, Nokia, etc.) please put this in your phones, be they relatively featureless or featurful. The utility of this far exceeds an mp3 player or video player.
OK I've been reading through this thread and I'm getting a little annoyed. Every other post I see is that "Maybe if there was more than one good song on the album, I'd buy it" crap. Ok for a lot of music out there this is true, but if you also pay attention, you will also realize that the one or two songs that are supposedly good are in fact utter dog shit. I guess I'm a little more critical of music. When I hear a catchy song, I recognize the fact that it is a catchy song and not really a good song. A catchy song means that there probably aren't any good songs on the album and the likelyhood of a second catchy song is slim. Buy an album by someone who puts out a song that is truly good, and by good, I mean is unique and requires talent to produce (both lyrically and instrumentally) and you will find that there are a lot of songs on that album that is just as good if not better (I'm one of those people that kinda likes the ten minute epic towards the end of the album that radio will never touch). I'm a very passive listener when it comes to CD's. I pop the cd in the car stereo and it will play until the album is over. Some I like, some I don't like, but overall I have a good idea of how talented the artist is. How can you say an artist is good when all you have heard is one song? One hit wonders get remembered for their songs, but no one remembers who performed it, and then some other band comes along and does a cover and the one hit wonder is forgotten, obscured by the shitty (usually) knock-off.
Ok I kinda went on a long rant there (and i don't feel like proof-reading so deal with it), but my point is that people really should think about listening to entire albums again. This is something that has been lost on the CD generation, and now even more on the internet download generation. Now I respect everybody's choice to listen to whatever they want however they want, but I think some of you out there will get a great experience out of listening to an album in it's entirety and have a better idea of what makes a good artist vs. a bad artist.
To give you a little background on what music I think is good:
1. Listening to a single track of Pink Floyd's Dark side of Moon is a crime against humanity.
2. I you ask me what my favorite Led Zeppelin song is (or album) you will get an answer that goes on for about an hour. I don't think I can narrow it down to fifteen.
3. Artists should (and do) earn their living by touring and performing live, and a good artist will not perform any of their songs in the same manner as they were performed on the album. I bought the album, I might have seen the video, so why did i come here?
To give the guy a little credit, he's really good at preventing "scope creep"