The docs don't suck. They expect you to have a working understanding of Linux. Or is that really too much to ask? Linux wasn't designed with the cluebies in mind - it was definitely designed for the power user, someone who knows what they want to do and doesn't need babying. Maybe one of these days, Linux will be easier to use. But like the poster before you, I don't know if that should be concentrated on now - increase the stability, streamline it more, worry about the pretty GUI later. Besides, it's still UNIX. UNIX was never meant for cluebies, either.
And man pages are just fine most of the time too (some of them are pretty bad, but let us hold off on the glittering generalities, 'k?). They assume the same working understanding of Linux as the HOWTOs do. I don't see that as unreasonable.
Yes, you're right. UNIX/Linux _is_ a different mindset. But for those who don't care about changing their mindset, well, Linux just probably isn't for them. They're happy with Windows/MacOS? Ok. Whatever.
A "Windows user's guide to Linux" would be long and tedious. It's just not an easy switch. Most of those who are what I would consider clueless wouldn't be very interested in Linux if they knew what it involved. I don't care what anyone else says - Linux isn't right for everyone. User-friendly is one thing (I think Linux is doing fine moving that way) but cluebie-friendly is going too far in the wrong direction.
"Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day - teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime." Too many clueless users want a handout - they want to be told how to do EVERYthing. They need to learn to take a little initiative. If we have to spoon-feed them everything, then what's the use in switching them away from Windows? They're just as bad off if they can't do anything on their own, IMO.
Umm, Hotmail still runs on Solaris and FreeBSD boxen. They _attempted_ to port it over to NT, and it died squealing like a stuck pig. NT couldn't take the load. It was, simply, a crashfest. That's why it's still running on UNIX.
Why do you think they want to add more to that pool? Money. Moneymoneymoney! What else? I don't think the whole "pretty GUI on Linux for all the (l)users" is so wonderful. Linux as it is now makes the user actually LEARN something. Now we're just gonna encourage stupidity? Oh. Great. Wonderful.
Good lord, are you masochistic or what? I'm guessing you haven't heard the horror stories about the IE releases on HP-UX or Solaris. (read: they're shitty, and huge, and bloated all to hell) They build IE relatively unmodified against a set of Win32-to-UNIX libraries. It's REALLY ugly. The libraries are commercial. I don't think it's real likely, and I can only pray it doesn't happen. I'd much rather use Opera for Linux (if it ever comes out...?) than an IE release for Linux. But all I can say is, be careful, what you wish for, you just might get it. And in spades, no less.
Consider the phrase, "If it compiles, ship it." Apparently, an M$ program/product manager was said to have told someone on his group just that (of course, that probably wasn't the first/last time). Gives you the ol' warm-fuzzies, doesn't it?
I don't think they will, because (a) they are greedy, and (b) they're probably embarassed. I would be too - I'm sure that Windows' source code is an utter rats' nest.
Do you know what Amp is? Amp != WinAmp. (Actually, it used to use the Amp core, but now it's using MPG123's player core.) WinAmp did the same thing, but on Windows. X11Amp just borrows the WinAmp UI. (Yes, I've been helping some with X11Amp hacking of late, so I suppose this could be a Blatant Plug(TM).) Check out www.amp.com if you actually want to find out what Amp is, and why Nullsoft was, last I heard, in court with the company that owns Amp.
1) Yes, I know the fighting ability and weapons/equipment use was taught in that way. He didn't just pick that up.
2) Exactly. Neo had to figure out how to control the Matrix to make it do what he wanted it to - that wasn't taught, he just had to try it and go from there.
3) Like another guy said, the "Jump" environment was to get him to try in a safe environment to learn how to exploit the fact that the Matrix was only a simulated reality.
So unless I'm misreading what Katz said, my understanding was that he thought he "downloaded" the ability to control the Matrix itself, which is untrue. (I was in the front row. It was loud. I didn't fall asleep.:)
The speech at the end was him, inside the matrix, speaking directly to it, telling it that he was going to reveal to everyone what was really happening. (i.e., show everyone that what they thought was reality, wasn't.)
Well, it's easy to say we have to educate people about computer security, but first people at large have to CARE about computer security. Most people don't care until security is well-broken (such as it is, if there is any at all) and it's become completely obvious that they're totally exposed. If there were some way to make it MATTER to people, maybe they'd care enough to educate themselves.
Hey Katz, you gotta pay attention in these movies... He didn't "download" all his abilities within the "matrix". He learned how to cheat - how to make it do what he wanted it do (what Fishburne's character was trying to teach him to do earlier on). That's half the point of the movie - once you knew what it was, you could make it do what you wanted, with the proper concentration, of course.
My understanding of DIVX is that it uses some kind of rotating keyset. And it's not Motion-JPEG on DVD, it's using MPEG-2. So I don't know if your theory would work.
How can they tell us who it is, when they're specifically not permitted (or recommended by legal counsel not) to disclose the name of the litigants. I want to know just as much as you - I LOVE UserFriendly, and if I knew who was causing them this trouble, I'd do everything I could to do something about it.
Your analogy between a computer and a car lacks something - with a car, you have to have a drivers' license. You are tested and expected to have a certain level of understanding about the basics of DRIVING the damn thing. Yet you seem to say, gee, we don't want that with computers... nobody should be expected to actually KNOW anything... Give me a break.
Also, working in a roll-your-own fashion isn't for everyone - why do you think M$ and Apple stay in business? But for me, that's half the reason I USE Linux - the ability to do things MY way. Roll my own if it comes down to that. For those who don't want that, I'm just not sure Linux is what they REALLY want.
I don't (personally) think that people should be allowed to be stupid and even USE a computer. I've said it for years. We cater to stupid people. WHY should we cater to stupid people?
I love Debian (I run slink on the server at work... way more stable than RH) but I hope it stays the way it is. I do, however, hope that Dselect goes the way of the dodo - I had horrible dependency problems when trying to setup the system using Dselect. When I just started using apt-get, it worked great.
Other than that, I personally don't think Debian should change that much. Let RH be the distro for the cluebie (and FIX THE DAMN LEAKY LIBCS). The clueless shouldn't necessarily be denied access, but is it so unreasonable to expect them to think for themselves?
If you had, you'd note that it said the GUID number is in part based on the MAC address of the system's Ethernet card. Please, read the article next time. You'll be more informed, and everyone will be happier.
My understanding was that it was a VBscript macro virus. So basically, unless you open a Word/Excel/whatever document up that contains the macro virus, it has no scripting host to run on, so you can't pick it up that way.
My understanding was that it was a VBscript macro virus. So basically, unless you open a Word/Excel/whatever document up that contains the macro virus, it has no scripting host to run on, so you can't pick it up that way.
Heh. I'd been thinking the same exact thing when I saw this headline on the front page. Gee, wouldn't it be interesting...
Pre-installed Windows vs. you-install Linux ...
on
Slate Takes on Linux
·
· Score: 1
Well, consider that a Windows preinstalled box contains hardware known to work with Windows, just like a Linux preinstalled box would include hardware known to work with Linux. If you've got some funky hardware, or stuff that's not totally supported yet... well, get to rattlin' the cage of the company that made the problem hardware. Get them to support Linux.
Actually, you'd be amazed how many factory-built PCs have their IDE/ATAPI CDs connected into the PnP sound cards (which, since the Linux kernel doesn't dick with PnP stuff, it doesn't know about). It's really pretty retarded. But of course, on a Windows preinstall, they can get away with dumb stuff like that.
Well, it's happened that/. has been out-of-order for a while at a time. However, that's not happened in awhile now, that I've seen. You're definitely doing better, Rob. Keep it up.:)
Slashdot Mirror
The docs don't suck. They expect you to have a working understanding of Linux. Or is that really too much to ask? Linux wasn't designed with the cluebies in mind - it was definitely designed for the power user, someone who knows what they want to do and doesn't need babying. Maybe one of these days, Linux will be easier to use. But like the poster before you, I don't know if that should be concentrated on now - increase the stability, streamline it more, worry about the pretty GUI later. Besides, it's still UNIX. UNIX was never meant for cluebies, either.
And man pages are just fine most of the time too (some of them are pretty bad, but let us hold off on the glittering generalities, 'k?). They assume the same working understanding of Linux as the HOWTOs do. I don't see that as unreasonable.
Yes, you're right. UNIX/Linux _is_ a different mindset. But for those who don't care about changing their mindset, well, Linux just probably isn't for them. They're happy with Windows/MacOS? Ok. Whatever.
A "Windows user's guide to Linux" would be long and tedious. It's just not an easy switch. Most of those who are what I would consider clueless wouldn't be very interested in Linux if they knew what it involved. I don't care what anyone else says - Linux isn't right for everyone. User-friendly is one thing (I think Linux is doing fine moving that way) but cluebie-friendly is going too far in the wrong direction.
"Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day - teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime." Too many clueless users want a handout - they want to be told how to do EVERYthing. They need to learn to take a little initiative. If we have to spoon-feed them everything, then what's the use in switching them away from Windows? They're just as bad off if they can't do anything on their own, IMO.
Umm, Hotmail still runs on Solaris and FreeBSD boxen. They _attempted_ to port it over to NT, and it died squealing like a stuck pig. NT couldn't take the load. It was, simply, a crashfest. That's why it's still running on UNIX.
Heh. The Solaris/SPARC version actually runs? The only stories I'd heard of it were of it crashing machines.
Why do you think they want to add more to that pool? Money. Moneymoneymoney! What else? I don't think the whole "pretty GUI on Linux for all the (l)users" is so wonderful. Linux as it is now makes the user actually LEARN something. Now we're just gonna encourage stupidity? Oh. Great. Wonderful.
Good lord, are you masochistic or what? I'm guessing you haven't heard the horror stories about the IE releases on HP-UX or Solaris. (read: they're shitty, and huge, and bloated all to hell) They build IE relatively unmodified against a set of Win32-to-UNIX libraries. It's REALLY ugly. The libraries are commercial. I don't think it's real likely, and I can only pray it doesn't happen. I'd much rather use Opera for Linux (if it ever comes out...?) than an IE release for Linux. But all I can say is, be careful, what you wish for, you just might get it. And in spades, no less.
Consider the phrase, "If it compiles, ship it." Apparently, an M$ program/product manager was said to have told someone on his group just that (of course, that probably wasn't the first/last time). Gives you the ol' warm-fuzzies, doesn't it?
I don't think they will, because (a) they are greedy, and (b) they're probably embarassed. I would be too - I'm sure that Windows' source code is an utter rats' nest.
Do you know what Amp is? Amp != WinAmp. (Actually, it used to use the Amp core, but now it's using MPG123's player core.) WinAmp did the same thing, but on Windows. X11Amp just borrows the WinAmp UI. (Yes, I've been helping some with X11Amp hacking of late, so I suppose this could be a Blatant Plug(TM).) Check out www.amp.com if you actually want to find out what Amp is, and why Nullsoft was, last I heard, in court with the company that owns Amp.
Ok, point by point:
:)
1) Yes, I know the fighting ability and weapons/equipment use was taught in that way. He didn't just pick that up.
2) Exactly. Neo had to figure out how to control the Matrix to make it do what he wanted it to - that wasn't taught, he just had to try it and go from there.
3) Like another guy said, the "Jump" environment was to get him to try in a safe environment to learn how to exploit the fact that the Matrix was only a simulated reality.
So unless I'm misreading what Katz said, my understanding was that he thought he "downloaded" the ability to control the Matrix itself, which is untrue. (I was in the front row. It was loud. I didn't fall asleep.
The speech at the end was him, inside the matrix, speaking directly to it, telling it that he was going to reveal to everyone what was really happening. (i.e., show everyone that what they thought was reality, wasn't.)
Well, it's easy to say we have to educate people about computer security, but first people at large have to CARE about computer security. Most people don't care until security is well-broken (such as it is, if there is any at all) and it's become completely obvious that they're totally exposed. If there were some way to make it MATTER to people, maybe they'd care enough to educate themselves.
Hey Katz, you gotta pay attention in these movies... He didn't "download" all his abilities within the "matrix". He learned how to cheat - how to make it do what he wanted it do (what Fishburne's character was trying to teach him to do earlier on). That's half the point of the movie - once you knew what it was, you could make it do what you wanted, with the proper concentration, of course.
My understanding of DIVX is that it uses some kind of rotating keyset. And it's not Motion-JPEG on DVD, it's using MPEG-2. So I don't know if your theory would work.
This has been mentioned for awhile now as an upcoming Linux distro for PPC systems, so I think it's for real. (I think so...)
How can they tell us who it is, when they're specifically not permitted (or recommended by legal counsel not) to disclose the name of the litigants. I want to know just as much as you - I LOVE UserFriendly, and if I knew who was causing them this trouble, I'd do everything I could to do something about it.
Your analogy between a computer and a car lacks something - with a car, you have to have a drivers' license. You are tested and expected to have a certain level of understanding about the basics of DRIVING the damn thing. Yet you seem to say, gee, we don't want that with computers... nobody should be expected to actually KNOW anything... Give me a break.
Also, working in a roll-your-own fashion isn't for everyone - why do you think M$ and Apple stay in business? But for me, that's half the reason I USE Linux - the ability to do things MY way. Roll my own if it comes down to that. For those who don't want that, I'm just not sure Linux is what they REALLY want.
I can only say this:
I don't (personally) think that people should be allowed to be stupid and even USE a computer. I've said it for years. We cater to stupid people. WHY should we cater to stupid people?
I love Debian (I run slink on the server at work... way more stable than RH) but I hope it stays the way it is. I do, however, hope that Dselect goes the way of the dodo - I had horrible dependency problems when trying to setup the system using Dselect. When I just started using apt-get, it worked great.
Other than that, I personally don't think Debian should change that much. Let RH be the distro for the cluebie (and FIX THE DAMN LEAKY LIBCS). The clueless shouldn't necessarily be denied access, but is it so unreasonable to expect them to think for themselves?
MPEG of trailer B? Where? I think we all want to see this. (I know I do anyway - those of you who don't agree, just be quiet. :)
Did you READ the article?
If you had, you'd note that it said the GUID number is in part based on the MAC address of the system's Ethernet card. Please, read the article next time. You'll be more informed, and everyone will be happier.
My understanding was that it was a VBscript macro virus. So basically, unless you open a Word/Excel/whatever document up that contains the macro virus, it has no scripting host to run on, so you can't pick it up that way.
My understanding was that it was a VBscript macro virus. So basically, unless you open a Word/Excel/whatever document up that contains the macro virus, it has no scripting host to run on, so you can't pick it up that way.
Heh. I'd been thinking the same exact thing when I saw this headline on the front page. Gee, wouldn't it be interesting...
Well, consider that a Windows preinstalled box contains hardware known to work with Windows, just like a Linux preinstalled box would include hardware known to work with Linux. If you've got some funky hardware, or stuff that's not totally supported yet... well, get to rattlin' the cage of the company that made the problem hardware. Get them to support Linux.
Actually, you'd be amazed how many factory-built PCs have their IDE/ATAPI CDs connected into the PnP sound cards (which, since the Linux kernel doesn't dick with PnP stuff, it doesn't know about). It's really pretty retarded. But of course, on a Windows preinstall, they can get away with dumb stuff like that.
Well, it's happened that /. has been out-of-order for a while at a time. However, that's not happened in awhile now, that I've seen. You're definitely doing better, Rob. Keep it up. :)