It's not that the Linux Desktop ('LDT') is “too innovative”. Frankly, it seems quite the opposite.
That's not to say that the LDT hasn't innovated at all. Quite the contrary; in 10 years, it caught-up with the industry and in some ways surpassed it in terms of usability and performance. Today, an LDT on the same equipment will out-perform its Vista or Win7-RC equivalent on many tasks.
Has LDT over-shot the landing? Again, my answer is 'no', and because there's more to innovation than user-adoption rates.
TFP is close to the problem; that developers for LDT have a disconnect with their user-base. The greatest motivator of the LDT was this co-op of developers; inventing, innovating and improving. What it seems they did was innovate, invent and improve each other's work and little else. A fair analogy might be that LDT development has an “in-breeding” problem.
Here's my Top 5 Things LDT Needs to Improve list:
Solid, Reliable Documentation/Help System Sadly, even the most innovative and useful-looking packages only provide helpful information about half of the time; and that's only when the doc-base isn't already broken.
Excessive Pre-Installed Features You'd think that LDT would learn vicarious lessons from Win32 in this regard, yet it seems to have fallen right in line with the bloat.
Dependence on Installation Media This is the Age of Broadband, why are we still downloading complete DVD images and not simply installing just what we need during installation?
The (Open Source = No Profit) Illusion This is aimed at the bigwigs of OSS; there's just as much money going around in partnerships as software, and finding retail partners is as easy as saying, 'No Windows Tax!' (getting major retailers to say "no" to big-windoz is another thing entirely)
Grassroots After seeing a small display for OSS titles on CD-ROM dirt-cheap at Micro Center, I thought, "What's stopping LDT branding from doing the same thing?" If only these displays would step-up their game, make it more eye-catching to tell the world, "Hey! I can do just as much as that $150 title, and I'm supported by a user-base!"
Something else that occurs to me--but falls outside the scope of the list--is the handling of user-base support. Why is it always just a forum with a "search" feature? Aren't we talking about the semantic web here? Whether the ODS packages or independent plug-ins, I think that parsing the huge info-base of online discussions is bound to be the breakthrough of 2010.
Discuss...
Re:They made it like Star Wars -- only better
on
Reviews: Star Trek
·
· Score: 1
This is what I've come to expect from a Trek-saturated community; endless bickering about some insignificant minutiae that, in the end, has nothing to do with nothing.
Take this film for what it is: a pure joyride
Follow a hapless loner on his journey to greatness -- check
Cleverly restart a franchise that has outlived its own popularity -- check
Deftly toss sentimental moments to ensure recognition of classic characters -- check
Capitalize on the latest trends of epic-ness -- check
Big boom at the end -- check
Sexy starship, "can't wait to get my hands on those nacelles..." -- check
Oh yeah, humor (ar ar) -- check
Believable and dynamic characters -- check
T&A -- check
Sufficient "fisticuffs" to offset intellectual top-heaviness -- check
A cast that works as a team -- check
Have I missed anything? It's got it all, and I was happy to be taken on such a fantastic ride. I almost expected the theater to start moving-about like a giant simulator... I was drawn in.
I'm not one to shell-out over ten bucks to watch a restored antique... I was there to witness something new and interesting, and I found it in Star Trek.
Now let's just take it in, accept that we're moving on and look forward to see what's next. Looking back will only bring us pain.
Whatever we say here won't make a pair-of-fetid-dingo's-kidneys difference about that anyway.
The point being, a story is as much to the game as the game is to the story. If the story is just fluff to give moral rationale to the endless violence, then the story has no meaning. On the other side of that coin, there are stories that shape and define the game, so much that to miss the story means having to stab a guess at the next move.
Thanks to energy drinks, a 2-second attention span and "personal expression" outlets like MTV, there is bound to be generation after generation of twitchy, impatient youth that can't see past the next achievement/medal/award so they can brag to their friends. Fine, we get it... the story angle just isn't for you.
If you put forth the question, "Is the video game art?" I'll give you a definite, "maybe." It may or may not be art, but it has that potential.
It can be a vessel for intriguing storylines, it can also overload the senses in ways we never before thought possible. The realm of electronic gaming transcends both lines of fine art and banal time-wasting. In this way, each game defines itself, the medium is that message... we choose the games by how we wish to spend our individual time, they do not choose us.
Storytelling in games will exist so long as there is one more interesting tale to tell. If that's not your bag, then don't buy the game.
Y'know... me too. I couldn't remember if Black Mesa was going on for six or seven years, but it could have been either for this thread. It's pretty much the same idea.
Updates for Black Mesa are few and far in between, but they are still working on it. As an aside, Black Mesa recently had a server crash and the old forums died; they are working like slaves to get it working again.
Whether for Deus Ex or for Source, I have to believe that making a game for the sake of the game is the best motivation there is.
As for others **kofluserkof** that would chide the modding community for lengthy projects, I think they have the wrong idea. It's not the ray-tracing engine or lighting effects that make a game popular, it's the balance of action and intrigue, the character insight as well as nice visuals that make for a great game.
"Hype" is for commercial games, modded games are by the community, for the community; their popularity comes naturally.
Besides, for the >5% of us, it's nice to have a fresh game that doesn't require a quad-core SLI system to play it.
As for Black Mesa, I made a fan video for it, and I plan to do another if there's enough time before the next media release.
For anyone interested, details on Black Mesa (a complete re-telling of the Half Life story from the beginning) can be found here.
That "something" will be apparent by this time next year... or maybe even by the end of 1st Quarter, 2010.
I can think of several "ifs":
If you pay to use "7", you get to keep using "7"
If you don't pay to use "7", it stops. (just... stops... or... pop-up ads)
If you think using 7-RC for a year will be pain-free, you've got another thing coming.
If you think that you can just pop XP back in... remember activation? Guess what... no more.
Everyone's making a great joke of it; "Of course the first one's free, that's how they hook you!" In this case, getting "hooked" will mean installing "7" and using it right up to June 2010, while XP silently and gracefully disappeared from under you.
If WGA and MSupdate just "stop working" one day, that leaves XP in the lurch... with nothing to stave off the exploits that follow. MS has the perfect comeback for critics; "Why not try '7'... it's free?"
MS built the empire by being the first, and now they're playing catch-up. I am no sympathizer, but I can appreciate that—as a business—MS is hurting and the world is wondering if they will ever regain that dominance... give us the same kind of complacency that we had back in the 90's.
So yeah, the drug-dealer metaphor is apropos. Just make sure that when you install "7" you use it... don't let it use you.
To mod or to post... that is the question. This time, I post.
Mod parent up... this is a sane post, a logical post and--above all--lends proper insight to TFP that is otherwise lost in the "/.quagmire".
If I could add anything it would be two words: solid core
There's solid-core (solid copper wires) and stranded-core (copper 'fibers' wrapped in insulation to make individual wires). Solid-core wires make for a reliable crimp every time. (quality RJ-45 tips also help)
Stranded-core cabling is just a waste of money, IMHO. In the early days, I'd put myself through hell thinking I still didn't crimp it "just right" when it failed test after test. Even the ones that worked ended-up bad just weeks later.
So, to sum-up:
Cables for patch-boxes/end-runs? Buy 'em.
Custom-tailored cable runs? Make 'em.
Ran out of bought cables? Make 'em.
When you make 'em, make 'em with solid-core cable.
Your boss buys a spool of stranded-core? Well... you could try weaving a hammock from it.
You see, all we have to do is point out the facts!
Less than 1% of school athletics participants go professional in their lifetime... regardless of the sport.
Now compare that to income in geological and research fields; some with government grants in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Of those that pursue such fields, over 80% go on to have a successful career and prosper from it.
Compare that to the 15% of professional athletes that have faced incarceration or criminal charges because of their off-the-field behavior.
I think the criminal activity of geologists is near zero. I'll check my numbers, but I'm pretty sure it's as close to zero as you can get.
So, it's simple... just get the American public to do the math about how math is... well... okay, nevermind then.
The insightful bit is on the part of TFA author; he made no claims that train-control was Widnows-based at all. In fact, he fully admits that it was 'unconfirmed'.
Speaking of non-confirmed things, what about the presumption of the author's motive, resources and off-record interviews? The author makes no claims that would serve any kind of relevance to your complaint.
Hello pot? This is kettle. You're black.
If you'd like to actually take TFA in context, my take on the authors point is not that the train was actually running on a Windows platform, but that the trouble re-booting gave people the impression that it was a Windows system. You see, it's not trying to presume that the train ran on Windows, but that folks would tend to think it is Windows-based because it was having that problem.
As a matter of fact, locomotives do not themselves run on a computer at all... they are largely mechanical and have proprietary embedded systems for controlling them. Much like a modern automobile; there's no full-fledged PC controlling the engine or transmission, but it is a specialized computer that runs the engine and engages the drive. The link from TFA simply describes an external management system, much like a diagnostic program that an auto mechanic would use on a laptop that's plugged-in to the car's diagnostic port. The only thing I could fault the author for here is providing a link that has only this, slight shred of relevance to his essential point.
What does require a computer is the GPS location-tracking, rapid communications and collision-avoidance systems. It is accepted protocol where a locomotive will never operate "in the blind" when there's potential for another 16,000-ton carrier to be on the same track; a likely reason that the passenger carrier in TFA didn't resume after stopping for the by-pass.
I fail to see the justification for your opinion that TFA is 'sensationalist' or 'badly-researched'. IMHO, it is a well balanced piece, with an obvious slant against Microsoft®, but with no unfounded claims against it.
I noticed something in the promo that any half-intelligent person could also conclude.
The video goes on about the "terrorism threat" in the beginning, and cites all the expensive security measures in place. At one point, the narrator (along with some on-screen captioning) says,
"Technology is only as good as the people that use it."
So, I mustn't be the only one that sees the irony in the proposal that follows this point in the video. They are proposing a technology that can disable individuals (has this been tested in any sort of extremes... such as PCP users?) and puts it in the hands of flight crew. Brilliant.
Now don't get me wrong... I actually like the idea of a wearable device that tracks my bags for me. (if it indeed works as well as they say... hope it's not software-dependent) Another plus would be to 'group' bracelets together, such as in family units or business groups. Travelers could track each other, 'courtesy paging' could be localized to an area where the individual has wandered off. (if that problem hasn't been completely mitigated by smartphones and the like)
Lastly, I have a problem with them going on and on about the costs of security. The bomb-detectors that cost over 350k each... so what? They scan thousands of pieces of luggage a day, so in that sense they are proving their value.
Noticeably absent from the video was any indication of cost. What would the actual cost be per-bracelet? Now multiply that by the 30-million or so travellers... DAILY! Suddenly, a one-time cost of nearly half-a-million doesn't seem so expensive for a measure of security.
Are the bracelets re-usable? If so, is there a system of sanitation in place to protect health of the next passenger to wear them? Are they secure like handcuffs or flimsy like the wrist-band from the last concert you attended? Can someone easily work their way out of one without being detected? How can a device yield a debilitating charge while being so small? Even Li-polymer batteries would only give a high-voltage sting of a second or two... IF the promotional video 'doodles' are to be believed.
Frankly, I'd believe them to be more like those home-arrest anklets... 8 ounces of klunky, armor-encased circuitry and a battery attached to a handcuff-grade shackle. On the ankle, slightly uncomfortable... on the wrist, unbearable, I'm sure!
Like every marketing department, these guys have clearly gone out of their way to make it seem like an 'essential need' for HLS and TSA. A strained and desperate attempt to sell an inspired idea that simply isn't thought-out, but making it seem like it's already to late to thwart all those pesky 'terrorists' out there.
The worst mistake we, as a people, have made in the past decade is to assume that our government will make sensible and practical choices. Don't put it past them!
Besides... there's one aspect of 'nine-eleven' that hasn't really been addressed... least of all by security measures aimed at passengers; the fact of the matter is those terrorists got through the system as employees, not merely passengers. What, if anything, has been done to keep THAT from repeating?
The truth is, it was foretold (in a way) by Bill Gates himself.
In his own words:
"If you can't make it good, at least make it look good." (emphasis mine)
What he said then about the Win9x platforms is simply geometrically amplified in Vista.
Literally, they made something flawed at its core, but gave it a shiny veneer. (again) Vista has demonstrated that, while it has a keener "look" than XP, it contains no core advantages in either speed or effciency; especially when considering the steep increase in requirements. I mean, why would you buy a car with just as much horsepower, but uses twice as much gas?
In my mind, I envision a motivational poster hung in the executive washrooms at MS, framed in "gold-pressed latinum" (but actually aluminum with a metallic lacuqer) that hails the word, "PERCEPTION" and has that very quote beneath.
Beneath it is a shelf that holds an ample supply of shoe lacquer, foundation mask, spray-on hair, dark-blue sharpie pens, a rack of dickies and of course, a lifetime supply of turd polish.
The AC reply has a point... of the "research" I've done, it's clear that S.O.P. for most communications/observation/unknown satellites is not to bring them down, but push them up.
IOW, when the satellite is clearly headed for the heap, but still responsive, the final order received by the satellite is something like;
(1) POINT THRUSTER AT EARTH (2) FIRE THRUSTER (3) CONTINUE UNTIL FUEL IS DEPLETED (4) BYE
Yes sir... they just fling 'em off into space. Who needs to spend millions on recovery teams and salvage operations when a few additional lines of code will solve the problem for everyone!
...officials familiar with the situation say about half of the 5,000-pound spacecraft is expected to survive its blazing descent through the atmosphere and will scatter debris -- some of it potentially hazardous -- over several hundred miles. At least with a missile strike, there's a chance that they can control exactly where the debris lands. Then again, entropy has foiled the plans of men throughout history.
Maybe they will give details on exactly when and where the missile strike can be seen... break out the folding chairs!
'Dead' is just such an absolute term... I like the "deep sleep" description.
I'm not very supersititious... but I'll be spending my birthday with a video camera, watching the skies and listening to Pink Floyd's"Learning to Fly".
The plain ol' railways are not outdated by any standard. I live in the Denver Metropolitan area of Colorado, partly known as a rail-freight hub of the west. They're hard at work every day, but I hardly think that 8,000 tons of coal is going to make it into town on a magnetic cushion.
As for commuter rails, our local public transit (Regional Transportation District, or "RTD") has finalized plans for commuter rail using modular, hybrid rail-car systems. These rail engines are self-contained; with a gas-powered generator, they move with electric motors running off batteries. These cars can inter-link to form a single 'train' that operates in perfect unity.
It's already similar to our current light-rail system, however since the commuter-rail plan is self-powered it will not use suspended power lines. Even though the rail-cars are ultimately powered by fuel, the cost-efficiency (per-person, based on full capacity) is nearly twice that of a conventional bus.
The plan, as published, won't even start to be realized until 2014. They will have laid-down all traditional iron rails for this system. I think it's a good plan, and it will do fine without talk of mag-lev mucking up the works.
I personally rode a prototype mag-lev train at the World's Fair 1986. It was a bumpy start, an even-bumpier stop, but incredibly smooth in the middle. I'm not ready to trade-in the 'on rails' experience for that just yet. I'm saying it has potential, but we had better have a good plan rather than just playing 'catch-up' with the rest of the world. (a'la the Springfield Monorail...anyone?)
Anyone ever hit a cow... or deer... or armadillo... or anything at 300mph? It's not pretty.
Keep it on the drawing board, because the traditional rails are still working; and better than ever.
To any overly zealous respondent that wants to shatter my metaphor; phbplphbphtphbpht!
To everyone else:
I'm going to be on the side of Ep 1 and not ROTJ; the Shark wasn't even in the tank for ROTJ, but it was jumped, the leather jacket was torn, and the hair mussed-up, all before Ep 1 rolled credits.
For my own timeline; I saw SW:ANH when I was six, and it was larger than life. I was too young to care about anything like the overall story or plot, but the space battles were like nothing anyone had seen before. I was haplessly indoctrinated into Lucas' vision... and I desperately wanted a speeder of my own.
As you might guess, I was ten years of age when I saw SW:TESB. One word: Scary. In the mind of a young boy, I clung to the happy moments in that film like precious candy. It seemed unlike the first movie; why aren't the good guys winning every battle!? My disillusionment didn't kick-in at that time, because there was still the colossal Hoth battle, encoring the most awesome space battles of any movie... and there was the questions raised; what will happen to Han?...what's Lukes plan?...and how could Vader *ever* in a *million years* be Luke's father? This one-two-punch to the senses and emotions is surely why the term "Space Opera" was coined for this franchise.
Then, as I turned thirteen, there came exactly what I wanted. Just the mere title gave me the hope I was looking for at the end of "Empire"; SW:ROTJ promised the return of the mythical warrior caste only known vaguely as the Jedi Order. Luke has a plan, and it's brilliant! Battles swayed to the good guys once again, more serious moments were broken-up with well-timed (albeit campy) moments of comic relief. A well-balanced adventure, leading to the most spectacularly choreographed combination of battle on the ground and in the heavens (only slighly lessened by the cutsey-fied Ewoks) climaxed in another tremendous victory for the good guys. The ending celebration, while a bit corny, was a welcome afterglow for the roller-coaster that had blown the senses of a young teenage boy. If there was anything missing, it was the sense that the victory was on a galactic scale and not just for one New Republic armada.
Working in Tech Support in the late 90's, the rumours of a new trilogy was sooo seductive. My initial thoughts were, "Another trilogy! Unbelievably Fantastic! If there's anything that will sure to be a great series of films, it is another set of movies from the Master, Mr. George Lucas!" Alas, in hindsight, I truly believed that Lucas couldn't possibly let us down.
The day I saw Episode I... I was impressed with all the CGI-spiffy things, and there was something that seemed like a plot, and the idea of Midi-Chlorians made me a bit ill along with the 'immaculate conception' theory. As the credits rolled, I felt that I had died a little bit inside.
SW:TPM was where it all began; Lucas chose vanity over soul, he chose polish over content, and he chose mass appeal over the story. It was all the wrong choices and it just got worse from there.
P.S. There's a reason I don't include Jar-Jar in any of the comparisons; he was just a CGI pipe-dream made to cover-up the lack of any sincere storytelling ability.
If anything in the galaxy could redeem these ill-conceived works of a troubled soul, it would be a re-imagining of the trilogy with fanbase content. (ducks)
w3rd. I recall many a gadget on Radio Shack shelves that pimped the term "Solid State" proudly on their cases. It had the vague impression that it was somehow higher quality, but in the end it was only a Taiwanese POS that had no moving parts. (in one case, there was a switch on the device that could not be moved... my introduction to irony)
The idea that nano-technology will "replace" anything is preposterous. As for the prediction; remember how there were predictions in the 50's about how robots would "replace people" as quickly as 1980? The notions that somehow all tedious/laborious/dangerous/noxious tasks would be handled by machines in the 21st century are still just that. (Just watch an episode of "Dirty Jobs" on Discovery to see what I mean.)
If anything, nanoTech is merely a better way of making something; a better starting material. Like plastic instead of wood, or graphite instead of steel. It has special properties that you can't find in other materials, but such is the contrast of many other synthetic materials at the times they were introduced.
How long will it be before we see shiny bursts on familiar products that pimp the phrase, "Now with nano-technology!" Yes, but does it mitigate the inherent crappiness of the product? That's the real question!
Like many others in this thread, I'm waiting to be impressed.
At last! A root-level post that isn't an off-topic firstpost. Still off-topic, but oh well...
After reading, I think the headline is wrong-way-round. Instead, it should read:
Windows Nerd Doesn't “Get” Latest Linux
I've seen many of his foibles exposed in this thread, but just to sum-up; the only “Windows thinking” going on in TFA are on the part of Mr. Byfield. His high expectations, meticulous nit-picking and spurious understanding of either Linux or even the Ubuntu franchise betray a cow-towed attitude towards computing. (No doubt, a product of his many years of clicking ‘the Start button’)
Has anyone else in the U.S. actually criticized an installation program for it's keyboard-driver selection? (other than Mr. Byfield, that is) This would only be a real issue in Europe, where keyboards are made in a mind-numbing variety of layouts and cultural preferences. In a North American release—where we embrace all the World's cultures and peoples yet make them use just one or two types of keyboards—how could this be an issue at all? I mean—please—are you telling me that someone buys a left-handed Dvorak layout keyboard without even knowing it, and then happens to install a pre-release of Ubuntu!? [calling out] Next!
And... here it is: How else would he know to cite the “lack of installed software?”—a clear reference to the textbook Windows Setup that we all know and loathe. (Just what's the difference between Minimal and Compact again?) If there's no selection, then you know you'll be getting the same, pre-installed software as everyone else. <sarcasm>I'm sorry. Did that make it way too convenient?</sarcasm> What could be better for the security of a system than to know what's installed before installing it!? Brilliant!
Harping on the initial selection of fonts!? Puh-leeze! Try foraging for some “free fonts” with Internet Explorer and you'll end-up with more headaches than finding-the-perfect-typeface-for-my-1337-PowerPoint.
I won't even mention how he brings-up the fact that the pre-release actually warns the user that they are installing a pre-release. (gasp.) You got a problem with that? Oh, wait. Now I've gone and mentioned it anyway. Dammit. Dammit. Dammit!!!
It's obvious that Mr. Byfield has something against Linux, or is it anything that isn't Windows? With thinly veiled statements like, “Ubuntu settled on installation from a Live CD,” (emphasis mine) one can almost hear the bile welling-up in Mr. Byfield's innards.
The vile underbelly of yellow journalism is clearly in the heart of the grey-collar tribe. Let's allow this to pass silently into the night... ...right after we rip him a new one, of course.
With water flows and seasonal changes, there may not be much to find. Even though there is evidence of tremendous meteor impacts from millions of years ago, those were actual impacts into hard earth.
The working theory with the Tunguska event is that the meteor exploded in mid-air.
Firstly—if that theory is true—it would increase the ambient levels of iridium just with all the micro-fragments and dust that accompany such an explosion.
Secondly, any fragments would have been thrown from the explosion and not from the momentum of the meteor itself. Who knows if it was enough velocity to leave any “trail” for scientists to find? For all we know, it just sunk into the mud...not to mention the opposing theory that the Tunguska object was in fact a comet, rather than a meteor.
Lastly, the specific area is a seasonal river and temperate marshland. The explosion may have occurred in a time when the soil was soft or muddy. Plunge a spade into dry earth and you will see the exact shape of the tool when you take it out. Plunge a spade into moistened soil or mud, and it collapses just as you pull the spade out. With nearly 100 wet seasons between then and now, it's likely that most traces of the fragment's path have been erased by weathering. (ergo, no obvious concentrations of iridium--isotope or not)
BTW: mega-explosion = mega-energy = potential for isotopes, therefore you're looking for depleted trace elements as well as stable iridium -- and, we can't really detect it on a mass scale, it has to be found through geological sampling.
For that matter, what if the alleged fragment turns out to be the veritable core of the meteor/comet? After going through such a tremendous blast, only to sink to the bottom of the bog, we might find it intact and preserved!
Thanks for the discourse, but I stand with my initial post; we'll have to wait and see with this story.
Not necessarily... to wit, the level of science in 1908 (and the response time of the researchers) would mean that iridium would be virtually undetectable. Not to mention that the most-stable isotope has a half-life of only 73 days. At this point, they should be looking for concentrations of platinum or osmium.
Moreover, the Tunguska Event is largely thought to be an airburst phenomenon, and not a conventional meteor impact. TFA is accurate in this regard, as they refer to the alleged discovery as a “fragment” rather than an entire meteorite.
In all, TFP is what I call an “almost news” piece; it's not really news, it's just a foreshadowing of the potential for a fairly significant news piece to-come.
We'll be waiting while they go dig it out of the mud and see what it actually is.
Any sort of “Special Edition” release is only going to emphasize that point; he had a job to do, and it meant shooting at something. (Coincidentally, it looks/feels/acts human in every way, even down to the blood.)
If this were truly to fall in the footsteps of “Lucas-ized” video releases, then...
Roy Batty would change from gouging Eldon Tyrell's eyes to burning them out with laser-beam eyes
All the blood from Replicants would be green or purple,
Gaff would be small and furry,
Leon would say “Wake up, time to fly” as a shallow reference to the subsequent stunt, and
the Voight-Kampff machine would bathe a suspect-replicant in gaudy CGI rays of ethereal “truth serum” light.
*Pray* that I am mistaken about any of these changes coming to pass. <knock, knock>
Putting aside the question of cross-functionality, saying what-if all platforms were fully compatible with each other, would anyone truly need Windows? The answer would be the same as the upgrade-to-Vista question; a flat ‘No.’
If you can ignore issues of dominant-market-share, what platform simply works the best under most circumstances? (the answer will vary, but clearly a vast minority will go, “Ooh! Ooh! Windows!”)
This Campaign of Desperation from Redmond is definitely the “white flag” to the consumer public... the tell-tale sign that MSFT is no longer relying on padded numbers to fool Joe Q. User into shelling-out for empty-CPU-calorie Vista.
I mean, look at the phraseology at work here:
‘fact rich’ program DEFINED: As “factual” as our ‘sales figures’ or ‘patent infringement claims’
‘proceed with confidence’ DEFINED: ‘prepare for disappointment’ (the first, similar-sounding phrase that popped into my head was ‘proceed with caution’... go fig')
This would be such an opportune time for RedHat, Mandriva, Ubuntu, Linspire and even Knoppix to step-up and really invest in a public-education campaign.
Seriously! Even with all the crap-tacular bloatware on their XP boxes, there is no justification for the relative price other than to pressure the market.
I, for one, express disgust at the blatant consumer-leveraging being perpetrated here. With this gesture, Dell effectively says, “We still stand by our rich Uncle Bill”.
Could there possibly be a “Windows Displacement Tax” being exacted from the consumer?
The only redeemable move Dell could make at this point is to reduce the cost-differential to within $1; at least then, it appears to be a mere token increase to comply with MSFT, but without any significant difference to consumers. That would be stickin' it to da man.
There is no update to FF 2 for Ubuntu 6.06. It will stay at FF 1.5, and the dapper-backports also don't have an update.
I may have missed your reasoning on this, but why the avoidance of non-Ubuntu-sanctioned software?
All it really means is that the Ubuntu teams haven't cleared FireFox 2.0 as “fully integrated” for Ubuntu distro's.
Does that mean it's unavailable? No.
Running Kubuntu Feisty with FireFox 2.0.0.3. I guess it's available, and I guess it's working.
If there's an argument to make, it's for the refinement of package delivery and interoperability of inter-distro packaging schemes. Just because it's a non-Ubuntu package doesn't mean it doesn't run on Ubuntu. (That's just sooo Windows-boxed thinking!)
Seriously... snap out of it.
When you're using Windows, you wouldn't go out and buy non-Windows software... 'coz it won't work. We all know that.
If you're using Ubuntu, you're using Linux. If you're using Mandriva, you're using Linux. If you're using Red Hat, you're using Linux.
If any given program offers a Linux package, there's probably a way to install and use it on your type of Linux.
If you're stuck on how to do it, keep asking and you will receive an answer.
Slashdot Mirror
Long answer follows:
It's not that the Linux Desktop ('LDT') is “too innovative”. Frankly, it seems quite the opposite.
That's not to say that the LDT hasn't innovated at all. Quite the contrary; in 10 years, it caught-up with the industry and in some ways surpassed it in terms of usability and performance. Today, an LDT on the same equipment will out-perform its Vista or Win7-RC equivalent on many tasks.
Has LDT over-shot the landing? Again, my answer is 'no', and because there's more to innovation than user-adoption rates.
TFP is close to the problem; that developers for LDT have a disconnect with their user-base. The greatest motivator of the LDT was this co-op of developers; inventing, innovating and improving. What it seems they did was innovate, invent and improve each other's work and little else. A fair analogy might be that LDT development has an “in-breeding” problem.
Here's my Top 5 Things LDT Needs to Improve list:
Sadly, even the most innovative and useful-looking packages only provide helpful information about half of the time; and that's only when the doc-base isn't already broken.
You'd think that LDT would learn vicarious lessons from Win32 in this regard, yet it seems to have fallen right in line with the bloat.
This is the Age of Broadband, why are we still downloading complete DVD images and not simply installing just what we need during installation?
This is aimed at the bigwigs of OSS; there's just as much money going around in partnerships as software, and finding retail partners is as easy as saying, 'No Windows Tax!' (getting major retailers to say "no" to big-windoz is another thing entirely)
After seeing a small display for OSS titles on CD-ROM dirt-cheap at Micro Center, I thought, "What's stopping LDT branding from doing the same thing?" If only these displays would step-up their game, make it more eye-catching to tell the world, "Hey! I can do just as much as that $150 title, and I'm supported by a user-base!"
Something else that occurs to me--but falls outside the scope of the list--is the handling of user-base support. Why is it always just a forum with a "search" feature? Aren't we talking about the semantic web here? Whether the ODS packages or independent plug-ins, I think that parsing the huge info-base of online discussions is bound to be the breakthrough of 2010.
Discuss...
This is what I've come to expect from a Trek-saturated community; endless bickering about some insignificant minutiae that, in the end, has nothing to do with nothing.
Take this film for what it is: a pure joyride
Have I missed anything? It's got it all, and I was happy to be taken on such a fantastic ride. I almost expected the theater to start moving-about like a giant simulator... I was drawn in.
I'm not one to shell-out over ten bucks to watch a restored antique... I was there to witness something new and interesting, and I found it in Star Trek.
Now let's just take it in, accept that we're moving on and look forward to see what's next. Looking back will only bring us pain.
Whatever we say here won't make a pair-of-fetid-dingo's-kidneys difference about that anyway.
Famous quote attributed to John Carmack: "The plot in a video game is just like the plot in a porn movie -- merely an excuse to get to the action."
Not just attributed, that quote is confirmed all over. Besides that, commentators have called him on it.
The point being, a story is as much to the game as the game is to the story. If the story is just fluff to give moral rationale to the endless violence, then the story has no meaning. On the other side of that coin, there are stories that shape and define the game, so much that to miss the story means having to stab a guess at the next move.
Thanks to energy drinks, a 2-second attention span and "personal expression" outlets like MTV, there is bound to be generation after generation of twitchy, impatient youth that can't see past the next achievement/medal/award so they can brag to their friends. Fine, we get it... the story angle just isn't for you.
If you put forth the question, "Is the video game art?" I'll give you a definite, "maybe." It may or may not be art, but it has that potential.
It can be a vessel for intriguing storylines, it can also overload the senses in ways we never before thought possible. The realm of electronic gaming transcends both lines of fine art and banal time-wasting. In this way, each game defines itself, the medium is that message... we choose the games by how we wish to spend our individual time, they do not choose us.
Storytelling in games will exist so long as there is one more interesting tale to tell. If that's not your bag, then don't buy the game.
Choice defines the market, not quotes.
Y'know... me too. I couldn't remember if Black Mesa was going on for six or seven years, but it could have been either for this thread. It's pretty much the same idea.
Updates for Black Mesa are few and far in between, but they are still working on it. As an aside, Black Mesa recently had a server crash and the old forums died; they are working like slaves to get it working again.
Whether for Deus Ex or for Source, I have to believe that making a game for the sake of the game is the best motivation there is.
As for others **kofluserkof** that would chide the modding community for lengthy projects, I think they have the wrong idea. It's not the ray-tracing engine or lighting effects that make a game popular, it's the balance of action and intrigue, the character insight as well as nice visuals that make for a great game.
"Hype" is for commercial games, modded games are by the community, for the community; their popularity comes naturally.
Besides, for the >5% of us, it's nice to have a fresh game that doesn't require a quad-core SLI system to play it.
As for Black Mesa, I made a fan video for it, and I plan to do another if there's enough time before the next media release.
For anyone interested, details on Black Mesa (a complete re-telling of the Half Life story from the beginning) can be found here.
That "something" will be apparent by this time next year... or maybe even by the end of 1st Quarter, 2010.
I can think of several "ifs":
Everyone's making a great joke of it; "Of course the first one's free, that's how they hook you!" In this case, getting "hooked" will mean installing "7" and using it right up to June 2010, while XP silently and gracefully disappeared from under you.
If WGA and MSupdate just "stop working" one day, that leaves XP in the lurch... with nothing to stave off the exploits that follow. MS has the perfect comeback for critics; "Why not try '7'... it's free?"
MS built the empire by being the first, and now they're playing catch-up. I am no sympathizer, but I can appreciate that—as a business—MS is hurting and the world is wondering if they will ever regain that dominance... give us the same kind of complacency that we had back in the 90's.
So yeah, the drug-dealer metaphor is apropos. Just make sure that when you install "7" you use it... don't let it use you.
Mod parent up... this is a sane post, a logical post and--above all--lends proper insight to TFP that is otherwise lost in the "/.quagmire".
If I could add anything it would be two words: solid core
There's solid-core (solid copper wires) and stranded-core (copper 'fibers' wrapped in insulation to make individual wires). Solid-core wires make for a reliable crimp every time. (quality RJ-45 tips also help)
Stranded-core cabling is just a waste of money, IMHO. In the early days, I'd put myself through hell thinking I still didn't crimp it "just right" when it failed test after test. Even the ones that worked ended-up bad just weeks later.
So, to sum-up:
You see, all we have to do is point out the facts!
Less than 1% of school athletics participants go professional in their lifetime... regardless of the sport.
Now compare that to income in geological and research fields; some with government grants in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Of those that pursue such fields, over 80% go on to have a successful career and prosper from it.
Compare that to the 15% of professional athletes that have faced incarceration or criminal charges because of their off-the-field behavior.
I think the criminal activity of geologists is near zero. I'll check my numbers, but I'm pretty sure it's as close to zero as you can get.
So, it's simple... just get the American public to do the math about how math is... well... okay, nevermind then.
...and you got "insightful" for that? Hmph.
The insightful bit is on the part of TFA author; he made no claims that train-control was Widnows-based at all. In fact, he fully admits that it was 'unconfirmed'.
Speaking of non-confirmed things, what about the presumption of the author's motive, resources and off-record interviews? The author makes no claims that would serve any kind of relevance to your complaint.
Hello pot? This is kettle. You're black.
If you'd like to actually take TFA in context, my take on the authors point is not that the train was actually running on a Windows platform, but that the trouble re-booting gave people the impression that it was a Windows system. You see, it's not trying to presume that the train ran on Windows, but that folks would tend to think it is Windows-based because it was having that problem.
As a matter of fact, locomotives do not themselves run on a computer at all... they are largely mechanical and have proprietary embedded systems for controlling them. Much like a modern automobile; there's no full-fledged PC controlling the engine or transmission, but it is a specialized computer that runs the engine and engages the drive. The link from TFA simply describes an external management system, much like a diagnostic program that an auto mechanic would use on a laptop that's plugged-in to the car's diagnostic port. The only thing I could fault the author for here is providing a link that has only this, slight shred of relevance to his essential point.
What does require a computer is the GPS location-tracking, rapid communications and collision-avoidance systems. It is accepted protocol where a locomotive will never operate "in the blind" when there's potential for another 16,000-ton carrier to be on the same track; a likely reason that the passenger carrier in TFA didn't resume after stopping for the by-pass.
I fail to see the justification for your opinion that TFA is 'sensationalist' or 'badly-researched'. IMHO, it is a well balanced piece, with an obvious slant against Microsoft®, but with no unfounded claims against it.
I noticed something in the promo that any half-intelligent person could also conclude.
The video goes on about the "terrorism threat" in the beginning, and cites all the expensive security measures in place. At one point, the narrator (along with some on-screen captioning) says,
"Technology is only as good as the people that use it."
So, I mustn't be the only one that sees the irony in the proposal that follows this point in the video. They are proposing a technology that can disable individuals (has this been tested in any sort of extremes... such as PCP users?) and puts it in the hands of flight crew. Brilliant.
Now don't get me wrong... I actually like the idea of a wearable device that tracks my bags for me. (if it indeed works as well as they say... hope it's not software-dependent) Another plus would be to 'group' bracelets together, such as in family units or business groups. Travelers could track each other, 'courtesy paging' could be localized to an area where the individual has wandered off. (if that problem hasn't been completely mitigated by smartphones and the like)
Lastly, I have a problem with them going on and on about the costs of security. The bomb-detectors that cost over 350k each... so what? They scan thousands of pieces of luggage a day, so in that sense they are proving their value.
Noticeably absent from the video was any indication of cost. What would the actual cost be per-bracelet? Now multiply that by the 30-million or so travellers... DAILY! Suddenly, a one-time cost of nearly half-a-million doesn't seem so expensive for a measure of security.
Are the bracelets re-usable? If so, is there a system of sanitation in place to protect health of the next passenger to wear them? Are they secure like handcuffs or flimsy like the wrist-band from the last concert you attended? Can someone easily work their way out of one without being detected? How can a device yield a debilitating charge while being so small? Even Li-polymer batteries would only give a high-voltage sting of a second or two... IF the promotional video 'doodles' are to be believed.
Frankly, I'd believe them to be more like those home-arrest anklets... 8 ounces of klunky, armor-encased circuitry and a battery attached to a handcuff-grade shackle. On the ankle, slightly uncomfortable... on the wrist, unbearable, I'm sure!
Like every marketing department, these guys have clearly gone out of their way to make it seem like an 'essential need' for HLS and TSA. A strained and desperate attempt to sell an inspired idea that simply isn't thought-out, but making it seem like it's already to late to thwart all those pesky 'terrorists' out there.
The worst mistake we, as a people, have made in the past decade is to assume that our government will make sensible and practical choices. Don't put it past them!
Besides... there's one aspect of 'nine-eleven' that hasn't really been addressed... least of all by security measures aimed at passengers; the fact of the matter is those terrorists got through the system as employees, not merely passengers. What, if anything, has been done to keep THAT from repeating?
The truth is, it was foretold (in a way) by Bill Gates himself.
In his own words:
"If you can't make it good, at least make it look good." (emphasis mine)What he said then about the Win9x platforms is simply geometrically amplified in Vista.
Literally, they made something flawed at its core, but gave it a shiny veneer. (again) Vista has demonstrated that, while it has a keener "look" than XP, it contains no core advantages in either speed or effciency; especially when considering the steep increase in requirements. I mean, why would you buy a car with just as much horsepower, but uses twice as much gas?
In my mind, I envision a motivational poster hung in the executive washrooms at MS, framed in "gold-pressed latinum" (but actually aluminum with a metallic lacuqer) that hails the word, "PERCEPTION" and has that very quote beneath.
Beneath it is a shelf that holds an ample supply of shoe lacquer, foundation mask, spray-on hair, dark-blue sharpie pens, a rack of dickies and of course, a lifetime supply of turd polish.
The AC reply has a point... of the "research" I've done, it's clear that S.O.P. for most communications/observation/unknown satellites is not to bring them down, but push them up.
IOW, when the satellite is clearly headed for the heap, but still responsive, the final order received by the satellite is something like;
Yes sir... they just fling 'em off into space. Who needs to spend millions on recovery teams and salvage operations when a few additional lines of code will solve the problem for everyone!
The MSNBC article says:
...officials familiar with the situation say about half of the 5,000-pound spacecraft is expected to survive its blazing descent through the atmosphere and will scatter debris -- some of it potentially hazardous -- over several hundred miles. At least with a missile strike, there's a chance that they can control exactly where the debris lands. Then again, entropy has foiled the plans of men throughout history.Maybe they will give details on exactly when and where the missile strike can be seen... break out the folding chairs!
'Dead' is just such an absolute term... I like the "deep sleep" description.
I'm not very supersititious... but I'll be spending my birthday with a video camera, watching the skies and listening to Pink Floyd's "Learning to Fly".
Cheers.
The plain ol' railways are not outdated by any standard. I live in the Denver Metropolitan area of Colorado, partly known as a rail-freight hub of the west. They're hard at work every day, but I hardly think that 8,000 tons of coal is going to make it into town on a magnetic cushion.
As for commuter rails, our local public transit (Regional Transportation District, or "RTD") has finalized plans for commuter rail using modular, hybrid rail-car systems. These rail engines are self-contained; with a gas-powered generator, they move with electric motors running off batteries. These cars can inter-link to form a single 'train' that operates in perfect unity.
It's already similar to our current light-rail system, however since the commuter-rail plan is self-powered it will not use suspended power lines. Even though the rail-cars are ultimately powered by fuel, the cost-efficiency (per-person, based on full capacity) is nearly twice that of a conventional bus.
The plan, as published, won't even start to be realized until 2014. They will have laid-down all traditional iron rails for this system. I think it's a good plan, and it will do fine without talk of mag-lev mucking up the works.
More details on the RTD plan can be found here.
I personally rode a prototype mag-lev train at the World's Fair 1986. It was a bumpy start, an even-bumpier stop, but incredibly smooth in the middle. I'm not ready to trade-in the 'on rails' experience for that just yet. I'm saying it has potential, but we had better have a good plan rather than just playing 'catch-up' with the rest of the world. (a'la the Springfield Monorail ...anyone?)
Anyone ever hit a cow... or deer... or armadillo... or anything at 300mph? It's not pretty.
Keep it on the drawing board, because the traditional rails are still working; and better than ever.
To any overly zealous respondent that wants to shatter my metaphor; phbplphbphtphbpht!
To everyone else:
I'm going to be on the side of Ep 1 and not ROTJ; the Shark wasn't even in the tank for ROTJ, but it was jumped, the leather jacket was torn, and the hair mussed-up, all before Ep 1 rolled credits.
For my own timeline; I saw SW:ANH when I was six, and it was larger than life. I was too young to care about anything like the overall story or plot, but the space battles were like nothing anyone had seen before. I was haplessly indoctrinated into Lucas' vision... and I desperately wanted a speeder of my own.
As you might guess, I was ten years of age when I saw SW:TESB. One word: Scary. In the mind of a young boy, I clung to the happy moments in that film like precious candy. It seemed unlike the first movie; why aren't the good guys winning every battle!? My disillusionment didn't kick-in at that time, because there was still the colossal Hoth battle, encoring the most awesome space battles of any movie... and there was the questions raised; what will happen to Han? ...what's Lukes plan? ...and how could Vader *ever* in a *million years* be Luke's father? This one-two-punch to the senses and emotions is surely why the term "Space Opera" was coined for this franchise.
Then, as I turned thirteen, there came exactly what I wanted. Just the mere title gave me the hope I was looking for at the end of "Empire"; SW:ROTJ promised the return of the mythical warrior caste only known vaguely as the Jedi Order. Luke has a plan, and it's brilliant! Battles swayed to the good guys once again, more serious moments were broken-up with well-timed (albeit campy) moments of comic relief. A well-balanced adventure, leading to the most spectacularly choreographed combination of battle on the ground and in the heavens (only slighly lessened by the cutsey-fied Ewoks) climaxed in another tremendous victory for the good guys. The ending celebration, while a bit corny, was a welcome afterglow for the roller-coaster that had blown the senses of a young teenage boy. If there was anything missing, it was the sense that the victory was on a galactic scale and not just for one New Republic armada.
Working in Tech Support in the late 90's, the rumours of a new trilogy was sooo seductive. My initial thoughts were, "Another trilogy! Unbelievably Fantastic! If there's anything that will sure to be a great series of films, it is another set of movies from the Master, Mr. George Lucas!" Alas, in hindsight, I truly believed that Lucas couldn't possibly let us down.
The day I saw Episode I... I was impressed with all the CGI-spiffy things, and there was something that seemed like a plot, and the idea of Midi-Chlorians made me a bit ill along with the 'immaculate conception' theory. As the credits rolled, I felt that I had died a little bit inside.
SW:TPM was where it all began; Lucas chose vanity over soul, he chose polish over content, and he chose mass appeal over the story. It was all the wrong choices and it just got worse from there.
P.S. There's a reason I don't include Jar-Jar in any of the comparisons; he was just a CGI pipe-dream made to cover-up the lack of any sincere storytelling ability.
If anything in the galaxy could redeem these ill-conceived works of a troubled soul, it would be a re-imagining of the trilogy with fanbase content. (ducks)
w3rd. I recall many a gadget on Radio Shack shelves that pimped the term "Solid State" proudly on their cases. It had the vague impression that it was somehow higher quality, but in the end it was only a Taiwanese POS that had no moving parts. (in one case, there was a switch on the device that could not be moved... my introduction to irony)
The idea that nano-technology will "replace" anything is preposterous. As for the prediction; remember how there were predictions in the 50's about how robots would "replace people" as quickly as 1980? The notions that somehow all tedious/laborious/dangerous/noxious tasks would be handled by machines in the 21st century are still just that. (Just watch an episode of "Dirty Jobs" on Discovery to see what I mean.)
If anything, nanoTech is merely a better way of making something; a better starting material. Like plastic instead of wood, or graphite instead of steel. It has special properties that you can't find in other materials, but such is the contrast of many other synthetic materials at the times they were introduced.
How long will it be before we see shiny bursts on familiar products that pimp the phrase, "Now with nano-technology!" Yes, but does it mitigate the inherent crappiness of the product? That's the real question!
Like many others in this thread, I'm waiting to be impressed.
At last! A root-level post that isn't an off-topic firstpost. Still off-topic, but oh well...
After reading, I think the headline is wrong-way-round. Instead, it should read:
Windows Nerd Doesn't “Get” Latest Linux
I've seen many of his foibles exposed in this thread, but just to sum-up; the only “Windows thinking” going on in TFA are on the part of Mr. Byfield. His high expectations, meticulous nit-picking and spurious understanding of either Linux or even the Ubuntu franchise betray a cow-towed attitude towards computing. (No doubt, a product of his many years of clicking ‘the Start button’)
Has anyone else in the U.S. actually criticized an installation program for it's keyboard-driver selection? (other than Mr. Byfield, that is) This would only be a real issue in Europe, where keyboards are made in a mind-numbing variety of layouts and cultural preferences. In a North American release—where we embrace all the World's cultures and peoples yet make them use just one or two types of keyboards—how could this be an issue at all? I mean—please—are you telling me that someone buys a left-handed Dvorak layout keyboard without even knowing it, and then happens to install a pre-release of Ubuntu!? [calling out] Next!
And... here it is: How else would he know to cite the “lack of installed software?”—a clear reference to the textbook Windows Setup that we all know and loathe. (Just what's the difference between Minimal and Compact again?) If there's no selection, then you know you'll be getting the same, pre-installed software as everyone else. <sarcasm>I'm sorry. Did that make it way too convenient?</sarcasm> What could be better for the security of a system than to know what's installed before installing it!? Brilliant!
Harping on the initial selection of fonts!? Puh-leeze! Try foraging for some “free fonts” with Internet Explorer and you'll end-up with more headaches than finding-the-perfect-typeface-for-my-1337-PowerPoint.
I won't even mention how he brings-up the fact that the pre-release actually warns the user that they are installing a pre-release. (gasp.) You got a problem with that? Oh, wait. Now I've gone and mentioned it anyway. Dammit. Dammit. Dammit!!!
It's obvious that Mr. Byfield has something against Linux, or is it anything that isn't Windows? With thinly veiled statements like, “Ubuntu settled on installation from a Live CD,” (emphasis mine) one can almost hear the bile welling-up in Mr. Byfield's innards.
The vile underbelly of yellow journalism is clearly in the heart of the grey-collar tribe. Let's allow this to pass silently into the night...
...right after we rip him a new one, of course.
With water flows and seasonal changes, there may not be much to find. Even though there is evidence of tremendous meteor impacts from millions of years ago, those were actual impacts into hard earth.
The working theory with the Tunguska event is that the meteor exploded in mid-air.
Firstly—if that theory is true—it would increase the ambient levels of iridium just with all the micro-fragments and dust that accompany such an explosion.
Secondly, any fragments would have been thrown from the explosion and not from the momentum of the meteor itself. Who knows if it was enough velocity to leave any “trail” for scientists to find? For all we know, it just sunk into the mud ...not to mention the opposing theory that the Tunguska object was in fact a comet, rather than a meteor.
Lastly, the specific area is a seasonal river and temperate marshland. The explosion may have occurred in a time when the soil was soft or muddy. Plunge a spade into dry earth and you will see the exact shape of the tool when you take it out. Plunge a spade into moistened soil or mud, and it collapses just as you pull the spade out. With nearly 100 wet seasons between then and now, it's likely that most traces of the fragment's path have been erased by weathering. (ergo, no obvious concentrations of iridium--isotope or not)
BTW: mega-explosion = mega-energy = potential for isotopes, therefore you're looking for depleted trace elements as well as stable iridium -- and, we can't really detect it on a mass scale, it has to be found through geological sampling.
For that matter, what if the alleged fragment turns out to be the veritable core of the meteor/comet? After going through such a tremendous blast, only to sink to the bottom of the bog, we might find it intact and preserved!
Thanks for the discourse, but I stand with my initial post; we'll have to wait and see with this story.
Not necessarily... to wit, the level of science in 1908 (and the response time of the researchers) would mean that iridium would be virtually undetectable. Not to mention that the most-stable isotope has a half-life of only 73 days. At this point, they should be looking for concentrations of platinum or osmium.
Moreover, the Tunguska Event is largely thought to be an airburst phenomenon, and not a conventional meteor impact. TFA is accurate in this regard, as they refer to the alleged discovery as a “fragment” rather than an entire meteorite.
In all, TFP is what I call an “almost news” piece; it's not really news, it's just a foreshadowing of the potential for a fairly significant news piece to-come.
We'll be waiting while they go dig it out of the mud and see what it actually is.
...Decker shot first?You kiddin' me? Decker always shot first.
Any sort of “Special Edition” release is only going to emphasize that point; he had a job to do, and it meant shooting at something. (Coincidentally, it looks/feels/acts human in every way, even down to the blood.)
If this were truly to fall in the footsteps of “Lucas-ized” video releases, then...
*Pray* that I am mistaken about any of these changes coming to pass. <knock, knock>
Why do I get this feeling that it would be found “plausible”?
Putting aside the question of cross-functionality, saying what-if all platforms were fully compatible with each other, would anyone truly need Windows? The answer would be the same as the upgrade-to-Vista question; a flat ‘No.’
If you can ignore issues of dominant-market-share, what platform simply works the best under most circumstances? (the answer will vary, but clearly a vast minority will go, “Ooh! Ooh! Windows!”)
This Campaign of Desperation from Redmond is definitely the “white flag” to the consumer public... the tell-tale sign that MSFT is no longer relying on padded numbers to fool Joe Q. User into shelling-out for empty-CPU-calorie Vista.
I mean, look at the phraseology at work here:
‘fact rich’ program DEFINED: As “factual” as our ‘sales figures’ or ‘patent infringement claims’ ‘proceed with confidence’ DEFINED: ‘prepare for disappointment’ (the first, similar-sounding phrase that popped into my head was ‘proceed with caution’... go fig')This would be such an opportune time for RedHat, Mandriva, Ubuntu, Linspire and even Knoppix to step-up and really invest in a public-education campaign.
I posted a huge rant about the formerly alleged price difference and made a complete a$$ out of myself, you insensitive clod!
Can we say “fleecing”?
Seriously! Even with all the crap-tacular bloatware on their XP boxes, there is no justification for the relative price other than to pressure the market.
I, for one, express disgust at the blatant consumer-leveraging being perpetrated here. With this gesture, Dell effectively says, “We still stand by our rich Uncle Bill”.
Could there possibly be a “Windows Displacement Tax” being exacted from the consumer?
The only redeemable move Dell could make at this point is to reduce the cost-differential to within $1; at least then, it appears to be a mere token increase to comply with MSFT, but without any significant difference to consumers. That would be stickin' it to da man.
I may have missed your reasoning on this, but why the avoidance of non-Ubuntu-sanctioned software?
All it really means is that the Ubuntu teams haven't cleared FireFox 2.0 as “fully integrated” for Ubuntu distro's.
Does that mean it's unavailable? No.
Running Kubuntu Feisty with FireFox 2.0.0.3. I guess it's available, and I guess it's working.
If there's an argument to make, it's for the refinement of package delivery and interoperability of inter-distro packaging schemes. Just because it's a non-Ubuntu package doesn't mean it doesn't run on Ubuntu. (That's just sooo Windows-boxed thinking!)
Seriously... snap out of it.
When you're using Windows, you wouldn't go out and buy non-Windows software... 'coz it won't work. We all know that.
If you're using Ubuntu, you're using Linux. If you're using Mandriva, you're using Linux. If you're using Red Hat, you're using Linux.
If any given program offers a Linux package, there's probably a way to install and use it on your type of Linux.
If you're stuck on how to do it, keep asking and you will receive an answer.
Besides, Dapper is sooo 2005. Get Feisty!
If you put yourself on the list, respond here!!!
Dr. Brackish Okun, Independence Day [1996]: “The last twenty-four hours have been real exciting.”
I am now #845 on the list, and awaiting my turn.
We're declaring independence from the Church of Windows. Now, who's got some stones?