1. I love KDE - when we run Linux desktops, they are Mandrake/KDE desktops
2. The KDE project is a quality project, I never liked GNOME's politics. The KDE team had the "harmony" project to create a GPL'd Qt replacement, just in case, the GNOME team could have worked on that instead of going after KDE in a holy war.
3. We have one developer licensed on Qt (triple platform) and one other that is probably being added to Qt development.
HOWEVER
The KDE team was a bunch of Trolltech guys. At least in the beginning, those pushing KDE development were from Trolltech.
The Trolltech team was out to create a cross-platform API and push it. KDE was their way of creating a Unix desktop using their libraries. The whole plan was to make Unix desktops credible (this was in the days where engineers would have a Solaris Workstation for engineering, and a Windows desktop for Groupware/Productivity apps), so that they could sell Qt. This was also before MS Office completely owned the market (remember, Office 95 was their first big hit, and it wasn't until the time of Office 97 that MS had a defacto productivity monopoly b/c Wordperfect died).
The KDE team was formed by Trolltech to create a marketplace for a Unix/Win32 cross-platform toolkit.
In addition, Motif/CDE had an established market. Trolltech was pushing Qt/KDE as a replacement, going after the entrenched Unix market. The goal was to push to Engineering focused Motif/CDE out for a Qt/KDE environment that would do productivity AND Engineering. That would let corporations build their internal applications (where people spent a LOT of time) in a cross-platform manner, for the engineers to be able to use.
They are much less painful to work with then NetSol/Verisign, those people are EVIL, and that's with the VIP support line.
For the smallest site (basically, and SEO test site) we'll spend $600-$1000 promoting it to get started, so who cares about $20/year for the domain.
Register.com's software could use some work, but for basic stuff its painless and FAST to use. When I had a problem, I was able to call support and get everything fixed.
The longest that I've been on hold with them is 5 minutes, so no complaints there.
I love the movie Starship Troopers. I love the book Starship Troopers. I find it an amazing coincidence that there was a movie with the name of a great book using similar character names yet none of the same plot!:)
You have the enjoy the movie for what it is, a silly sci-fi movie with really cool bugs.
I mean, how do you make a movie about a book and mock the ideals of the book?
I see them as two completely unrelated works that both stand on their own merits.
If you ever wanted to see a commentary on Vietnam set in space, you should see the movie.
The problem is the term Linux. And RMS's GNU/Linux DOESN'T improve things at all. It is an issue of branding.
Linux is a kernel. Yeah, the systems use GNU tools for System (UNIX, user space stuff) level things, but that isn't the issue.
The ideal would be to DROP Linux from the branding effort (like MS dropped NT from their branding when they wanted to make it the mainstream system, otherwise consumers don't want to pay for "pro" level software).
If RedHat develeped three platforms:
RedHat Advanced Server (powered by Linux)
RedHat Workstation (powered by Linux)
RedHat OS (powered by Linux) [hey, shell out $20k for branding consultants, I'm not a naming guy)
note: Mandrake, SUSE, and anyone else that wants to play should do the same.
then RedHat would be promoting RedHat as the OS. They could then standardize, and utilize Linux's brandawareness in the "powered by" portion, without this problem.
The "open source" effort is about freedom, and a consequence of that freedom is choice, which I see as a benefit. However, that isn't "useful" for end users.
For Example, you should be able to go into a store, and pick up a CD not for "Linux" (requires glibc X.Y+, Linux kernel 2.X.Y+, etc.), but for RedHat, or for Mandrake, etc., then you would accomplish what this guy wants.
RedHat should have a standard look and feel across their consumer and workstation OSes. You should be able to buy "Redhat compatible" software (requires RedHat 9.0 or higher). Now, tech companies could STILL release "software for Linux," but the box could state RedHat 9.0 or Mandrake 9.0 or higher.
In that case, there is NO need to drop KDE or GNOME or whatever. Hackers can do whatever they want. However, the "commercial" install should include RPMs or whatever for whatever distribution they want.
RedHat should have a logo certification, as should Mandrake and any other players.
To have the RedHat logo, you should have to sport a "blue curve" look and feel.
In addition, the "installation" programs should rethink the options a bit.
Sure, the Server piece should let you super customize it, and maybe a free downloadable ISO "hacker edition" as well. However, installation options should affect applications, NOT libraries.
I should be able to target a certain edition of RedHat (or Mandrake, or SUSE), and KNOW what libraries are installed. It is absolutely REDICUlOUS how many libraries are options.
Real simple, if KDELIB isn't installed in the "base," then KDE apps aren't "supported."
The problem isn't an issue of technology existing (afterall, Windows has had Progman/Explorer replacements forever), it's an issue of the branding.
Getting software for "Linux" requires knowing what libraries are installed.
Getting software for Windows or Mac OS X requires knowing what version is installed.
I may need to have Jaguar or 10.2.3 or higher, or whatever for my Powerbook software. I never need to have a particular optional library installed.
And THAT is why Linux is having trouble on the desktop.
Leave the technologists alone, but "Linux" companies, reorganize your installation/brand awareness if you want the desktop, corporate or otherwise.
Seriously... A default of 0.1, WTF? 5.5 worked out much nicer... since my threshold is 8.0. I had some friends send in tests... a legit attachment is okay (I've emailed files around before), but anything suspicious and you can go away...
I also bumped up the forged Outlook headers a bit, as those seem popular as well...
On Google.com, it is VERY clear what are paid ads and what are "real" results. With MSN, for example, they list Featured Site (you pay MSN), followed by Overture (you pay per click), following by the Looksmart Directory Listings (used to just pay for submission, for the past year, Looksmart charges $0.15/click for those results).
After the "paid" listings come the Inktomi listings. Those crawler based listings include PFI (pay for inclusion, you pay for daily spidering, but no "boost" in rankings) and the Partner Connect program, where you get free traffic for a week, then negotiate a PPC price for traffic.
If you search MSN, you would get the impression that Featured is editorial (which is kind of is), Sponsered is paid, and Directory/Page results are "real" search results, where the Directory/Page are often actually paid results.
The paid traffic from Inktomi involves an XML feed of terms and results, and your "fake" entries are treated as real entries with a boost for being a paid player.
In addition, for various adult terms, MSN tells you to use a third party adult "search engine," which ISN'T a search engine. It is a big player in the adult space that pays MSN for all the traffic and lists their sites, but does it in a "search engine" look and feel.
That is manipulating the rankings. If Google were to say, charge for the XML entry (either PFI or PPC) into Froogle.com, and then shot the Froogle results interspersed with Google results, that would be manipulating the rankings for money.
That is the manipulation angle.
Now, are paid results any better/worse from objective results if those are manipulated by SEO professionals (so you pay an SEO to get "free traffic" instead of paying the SE for the traffic)?
It's certainly more manipulated.
With a free engine, you could tweak the rankings and sell ads on the side, but not have manipulated editorial.
It's about maintaining a wall between advertisements and editorial, and the only engine that appears to have that wall is Google, and even Google pushes the boundaries.
The first paper currency was NOT backed in gold. If you look on a bill, it says "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE." Coins were valuable because of the metals involved. The ORIGINAL papermoney, Federal Greenbacks, were issued by the Congress to pay for the Civil War. They were "Legal Tendar" for all PRIVATE debts. Taxes (then simply duties) had to be paid in specie (gold coins) so that the government had hard money by which they could purchase things, particularly from Europe. All PRIVATE individuals had to accept Greenbacks as payment, and failure to accept them got people jailed.
As a result, MASSIVE inflation happened, as the government issued Greenbacks for purchases that were considered legal tender but were backed with nothing.
The gold standard was created later, to allow printed money for convenience, while being exchangable for gold. This avoided inflation and created the paper economy.
The first paper money was backed by the full faith of the Union military.:)
I pay around $100/mo. to DirecTV, because I get the HD channels, HBO, and Showtime. During the season, most of my watching is from the 6 networks that I pick up OTA on their digital feed. However, I pay for my entertainment, because I like to have news and random stuff to watch at random hours, even if I mostly use my Replay during the season.
If I had to pay FoxNews $5/mo, CNN $10/mo, HBO $20/mo, Showtime $20/mo, and HD Channels ($20/mo, or worst, $5 for ESPN, $5 for Discovery, and $10 for HDNet and HDNet movies), that would only be $75, but I probably wouldn't pay. Or, I'd only pay for ESPN during football season, etc.
Why? It's the nickle-and-diming, I have to think of each purchase. Instead, I chose to get DirecTV for some HD and general programming, and I can just add services. The $12+$11 for two premium packages is easy to add, but if I needed to send out two bills, I might drop them.
The Internet does need to follow the television model to some extent...
You can get "free" but crappy access (pre-digital OTA sucked, only 10% of people use it), like the free/cheap ISPs. You can get pay (normal channels) like basic cable/satellite (think broadband or premium ISP), and you should be able to get premium (Wall Street Journal, etc). In fact, I think that the problem isn't the cost, it's pulling out your credit card.
When I'm in a store, I have no problem pulling out cash for a $10 purchase or credit for a larger (but still sub $50 purchase, in the normal expenses range - everyone has a cap on the non-thinking payment). But on the Internet, I need to fish out my wallet, create an account, enter my information in, etc.
Microsoft tried it, but their program was annoying and intimidating.
When consumer content will work, will be when AOL starts with a model for their customers to buy premium Time Warner content, then adds more. However, they need to be structured like the cable premium levels.
i.e.: $25 for basic AOL (plus your phone line) or $40 for broadband AOL - i.e. $40/mo covers the basic Internet service $20 more for premium AOL (adds basic Time Warner content)
Then be able to add premium content for $5/mo. i.e. when an AOL user hits Slashdot, they can subscribe for $5/mo.
We're willing to pay more if it is centralized and trustworthy.
AOL is the most obvious, as they are the leader in the consumer Internet. However, each ISP should offer these programs.
Then pay-for content will work, but it has to be through my "Internet" bill, NOT through individual credit card transactions.
Micropayments are retarded, nobody wants to think "is this worth 10 cents." Think that wildly successful pay-per-view. Charge $3 - $5 one time (on your next "Internet bill" for specialty content. I can pay $3 for a movie ($5 for PPV), instead of (or in addition) to subscription services. That will work, it's not awkward, and it's not annoying.
Roman Law is only binding in Louisianna. The other 49 states are common law states, with all British Commonlaw prior to 1776 being binding unless overruled by the legislature...
I remember reading that the right to trial by combat wasn't removed until 1780 somthing...
So we've moved most users to OS X, a few special purpose Windows machines (Quickbooks, two designers that bring their own Windows machines, and one developer choosing between Linux and OS X).
If I cared about speed for my Unix workstations, it's a fair comparison. My OS + Applications would be run on Redhat 9 using GCC to compile under Linux.
In all honesty, the numbers aren't that meaningful, as we wouldn't consider a dual-G5 (or a dual-Xeon), but it is nice to know that Apple has "caught up." Maybe the P4 is faster or maybe the G5 is faster, but it's pretty similar.
To me, that matters, as the guy who is deciding played with an old G4 Cube with Jaguar, and it was too slow for him. Knowing that it will run OS X fast is critical in his decision.
If I run a Linux machine, the apps will be built with GCC. For Windows tests, they showed the Photoshop + Mathematica tests. For the pure crunching tests, they compared OS X to a Redhat workstation, not an unreasonable comparison.
We set 4 of them up for junior employees... They happily chug away with Mandrake on them. Lindows was kind of neat, but we wanted machines that would listen to our LDAP server (running OS X). We just mount the OS X Users share point via NFS and away they go. Each machine has Mozilla on it plus an email application, and they are useful for our web researchers.
They don't have the maintenance headache (and cost) of a Windows machine, and are cheaper than the eMacs that we otherwise use for low end computing.
Don't get me wrong, as a Gadget freak, I buy LOTS of products designed/created in Japan. I find East Asian cultures fascinating to study, and if my red-neck ass takes a trip outside of North America, it will be to Asia.
That said, I don't buy that Japan's militaristic culture has changed (anymore than the Prussian culture has changed in Germany, just the outlet), just adapted. The Japanese businessmen are known for ruthless dealings with outsiders, despite a consensus driven culture internally.
In the 80s, Japan was threatening to overtake the US economy. It's the second largest economy now, and if you recall the Japan-bashing in the early 90s recession, people thought that it would become the largest economy withing 15 years.
Japan expects to defeat the US eventually, but they keep quiet.
The bravado that the Americans display is off-putting to most. The bravado displayed by Europeans is silly and absurd, given Europes collapse over the past 100 years (remember, they used to run the world, now they run expensive, over-priced, inadequate health care systems), it's bizarre.
East Asian cultures have a longer outlook than Western cultures, and are less individualistic, which results in a different mindset. While the Japanese business leaders may be slowly plotting to take over the world, the average Japanese person doesn't feel the need to be rude and obnoxious to the average American. It's a different culture, and it lets the US and Japan be close friends at a government level. The Americans want to act like they run the world, and Japan is happy to let the Americans feel that way. None of the Asian leaders feel the needs to make rude and derogatory remarks towards our leadership the way that the Europeans do. Rather then suffering from an inferiority complex, they simply focus on the goal.
Don't get me started on the French... Cowardly monkeys...
You're full of it. MIT has their network run properly. The class of IPs is segmented on meaningful lines, and all machines have an IP. There is no need for MIT to switch to a hacked segment because the rest of the world wants to avoid switching to IPv6.
MIT and other institutions that were instrumental in creating the Internet as we know it got larger blocks of IPs that others get now. So what? There is a solution that has plenty of addresses.
If people don't want to roll out IPv6, I don't see why others should pay for the decision. MIT runs their network correctly. There is nofirewall, all machines are in DNS, it's the RIGHT WAY to run a network. I don't see why MIT should switch to a hacky solution because others are being silly.
Besides, who is this group going to do the requiring? The Slashdot masses? Give me a break.
The people that created the Internet have more IPs. Everyone that wants to be a free rider on the research done by others can deal with what is left.
You can't just declare everything a shared resource because you want to. Those IPs are MIT's, by virtue of what MIT did when IPv4 was becoming a reality.
My house had a/16 address (not a B technically, B is the range that are carved out as Bs, it was a part of an A)... I ran it for a few terms. We were only allowed to use 254 addresses, but the rest were held for future use. We weren't allowed DHCP, it had to have static IPs with names assigned in their cryptic system.
They were experimenting with rolling out DHCP across another of the "C" classes, and other things. The point was that you'd eventually want more addresses, and MIT has them for being first.
It also makes MIT's routing easier, as every cluster could have a segment, etc.
MIT has a class A by virtue of MIT's involvement in the whole project. What MIT does with those addresses is their business. They have given each off-campus living group 254 addresses. The fact that the rest of that/16 subnet isn't used is none of your business.
SCO needs money to pursue legal case. Microsoft has money and wants to cover their ass. SCO also wants a high profile license to help bludgeon IBM. It makes sense for all involved, especially if Microsoft was considering it for a while.
They probably got a license on the cheap. Should SCO beat IBM, the license fees would go up. I'm pretty certain that the bean counters made this decision.
If we pay now, we pay X. If we don't pay now, there is an 80% chance that we pay 0 in royalties, but pay between.5X and 1.5X in legal fees, AND a 20% chance that we pay 10X in royalties and between.5X and 2.5X in legal fees. Therefore, it is cheaper to pay now.
I don't think that it was the lawyers, I think that it was the accountants. Besides, accountants HATE uncertainties. This way they get off the hook and can focus on their business, instead of another legal case.
Come on, where are all the European users talking about America being facist now? I want to hear about how the EU values privacy and the US is run by a nazi-like regime...
Hold on cowboy, the US has recently established global precedent. Failure to abide by our views results in your being an "illegal" outlaw regime, and we don't allow those to remain. For reference: see Taliban in Afghanistan, Baath Party in Iraq for recent example, or the Emperor in Japan and the Nazi Gov't in Germany...
You don't have to respect our culture, you may not respect our President, but you WILL respect our Aircraft Carriers.:)
All kidding aside, Common Law Courts (49 states in the US, several countries in the EU I believe... I know that LA in the US is on the Roman/Latin system, as are Italy and France, and Britain is obviously on the Common Law system, but I forget who else is what) tend to defer to each other's precedents when possible (but only for rulings on Common Law)....
However, a serious ruling in the US will affect ANYONE in the EU that does business in the US. In fact, business leaders and the movers and shakers (re: the 8 people in Europe that work over 35 hours/week:-) ) aren't going to dismiss the US courts because a bunch of college kids like to laugh at the US...
Well, as clearly stated in the article (hint), the outdated systems on the shuttle is a BIG part of the problem. Each system on the shuttle is autonomous, and requires one or more individuals on the ground to monitor it the entire trip. This results in thousands of people on the ground monitoring these things. Alternatively, if you modernized the equipment, you could DRASTICALLY reduce the people required to monitor the Shuttle while in orbit.
This could save NASA billions in costs. The problem is that NASA wants a new device that is massively better than the shuttle, instead of doing a CBA and get a fleet that is modern, 2-4 times safer, and costs half to operate.
The problem is that NASA won't go with replacement programs until they get a 200-fold safety improvement and a 10-fold cost savings. So as a result, we are spending a fortune on an aging fleet of increasingly primitive vehicles.
Instead, it would be nice if NASA would go for 2-4x safety improvements and 50% cost savings, and then build a new reusable launch vehicle every 10-20 years.
If we left alone or increased NASA funding, we could support perpetual research on new shuttles, with each generation bringing down in costs. If the operating costs dropped, you could save the money and use it towards research. The shuttle program produced a LOT of technology for the US economy (remember everything was space-age in the 80s), and new research programs will continue to do so. However, just relaunching the same thing for billions doing retarded thing like ants in space isn't pushing technology forward, it's just spending money to protect NASA's turf.
I have a Samsung i330, it was the only PDA phone that I could find that would work with my Powerbook and my existing Sprint number (only number that I gave out for about 3 or 4 years).
It absolutely SUCKS! Now, as someone that fails to carry much around, it's useful... now I have a PDA the 85% of the time I remember my cel phone. However, as a phone it blows. Everytime the software crashes, I lose my voice dialing settings. Without voice dialing, the lack of a real keypad is a killer.
I'll admit, actually carrying around a PDA is really useful, but the smart devices all suck.
A blackberry addict at another company that we work closely with LOVES his Blackberry phone. However, the thing is awful.
Yeah, we all are willing to suffer because we need more communications, but don't doubt for a moment that these devices REALLY, REALLY, REALLY suck.
The problem is that everyone throws tech at the problem, and the UI suffers. My phone is a PDA first and a phone second, that's REALLY, REALLY, REALLY annoying.
MS will not likely "win" in the cel market, it's not their bread and butter. The MS strategy is "cheap" and "good enough." PocketPC hasn't deplaced Palm DESPITE Palm's idiotic moves because they haven't been cheap. They are, however, "good enough," and many people buy the more "full-featured" device, whether they need/want it or not.
Extra features on phones need to be well integrated... they aren't...
Insert CD, on insert, iTunes rips mine at 192 AAC (replacing 192 MP3). Magically, there is a directory for each artist and each CD. I moved mine out of my home directory and into/Documents/Music, I don't really know why though.... It's automatic.
What's great, is that sometimes CDDB has bad data... well I can mass change the CD's info. It's absolutely terrific.
What's nice is that I don't "copy music" to my MP3 player. I have music on the road. I mean, I plug in my iPod.
I have enough to worry about without worrying about my music. When I get CDs, I order from Amazon, and they come to the office. When the CD arrives, I pop it in, and iTunes rips it. I then make a copy of the CD w/ CD Text (via Toast). The copy goes in the Jukebox in the home stereo, and the original goes in a drawer with the other original CDs.
Now I have it at home in the stereo, in the car, if I'm on the Subway, at the gym, and at the office. How does it get everywhere, the iPod plugs in.
If something cheesy (heard from a friend or on FM/XM Radio), I can go buy the track for $1. No more scouring for music.
I have music everywhere, and it doesn't take any time anymore. Go me!
iTunes 4 is pretty slick, Rendezvous sharing is cool... Let me go see what the other guys at the office listen too...
The iPod costs a lot more... Because you'll start really loving your iPod, and wishing your computer behaved similarly. Then you go out and buy a Mac for $1k, and start liking it. Then you want it as your primary computer, and you end up with a Powerbook...
Slashdot Mirror
1. I love KDE - when we run Linux desktops, they are Mandrake/KDE desktops
2. The KDE project is a quality project, I never liked GNOME's politics. The KDE team had the "harmony" project to create a GPL'd Qt replacement, just in case, the GNOME team could have worked on that instead of going after KDE in a holy war.
3. We have one developer licensed on Qt (triple platform) and one other that is probably being added to Qt development.
HOWEVER
The KDE team was a bunch of Trolltech guys. At least in the beginning, those pushing KDE development were from Trolltech.
The Trolltech team was out to create a cross-platform API and push it. KDE was their way of creating a Unix desktop using their libraries. The whole plan was to make Unix desktops credible (this was in the days where engineers would have a Solaris Workstation for engineering, and a Windows desktop for Groupware/Productivity apps), so that they could sell Qt. This was also before MS Office completely owned the market (remember, Office 95 was their first big hit, and it wasn't until the time of Office 97 that MS had a defacto productivity monopoly b/c Wordperfect died).
The KDE team was formed by Trolltech to create a marketplace for a Unix/Win32 cross-platform toolkit.
In addition, Motif/CDE had an established market. Trolltech was pushing Qt/KDE as a replacement, going after the entrenched Unix market. The goal was to push to Engineering focused Motif/CDE out for a Qt/KDE environment that would do productivity AND Engineering. That would let corporations build their internal applications (where people spent a LOT of time) in a cross-platform manner, for the engineers to be able to use.
Alex
They are much less painful to work with then NetSol/Verisign, those people are EVIL, and that's with the VIP support line.
For the smallest site (basically, and SEO test site) we'll spend $600-$1000 promoting it to get started, so who cares about $20/year for the domain.
Register.com's software could use some work, but for basic stuff its painless and FAST to use. When I had a problem, I was able to call support and get everything fixed.
The longest that I've been on hold with them is 5 minutes, so no complaints there.
Alex
I love the movie Starship Troopers. I love the book Starship Troopers. I find it an amazing coincidence that there was a movie with the name of a great book using similar character names yet none of the same plot! :)
You have the enjoy the movie for what it is, a silly sci-fi movie with really cool bugs.
I mean, how do you make a movie about a book and mock the ideals of the book?
I see them as two completely unrelated works that both stand on their own merits.
If you ever wanted to see a commentary on Vietnam set in space, you should see the movie.
Besides, it has Doogie Howser as a Nazi general!
Would you like to know more?
Alex
The problem is the term Linux. And RMS's GNU/Linux DOESN'T improve things at all. It is an issue of branding.
Linux is a kernel. Yeah, the systems use GNU tools for System (UNIX, user space stuff) level things, but that isn't the issue.
The ideal would be to DROP Linux from the branding effort (like MS dropped NT from their branding when they wanted to make it the mainstream system, otherwise consumers don't want to pay for "pro" level software).
If RedHat develeped three platforms:
RedHat Advanced Server (powered by Linux)
RedHat Workstation (powered by Linux)
RedHat OS (powered by Linux) [hey, shell out $20k for branding consultants, I'm not a naming guy)
note: Mandrake, SUSE, and anyone else that wants to play should do the same.
then RedHat would be promoting RedHat as the OS. They could then standardize, and utilize Linux's brandawareness in the "powered by" portion, without this problem.
The "open source" effort is about freedom, and a consequence of that freedom is choice, which I see as a benefit. However, that isn't "useful" for end users.
For Example, you should be able to go into a store, and pick up a CD not for "Linux" (requires glibc X.Y+, Linux kernel 2.X.Y+, etc.), but for RedHat, or for Mandrake, etc., then you would accomplish what this guy wants.
RedHat should have a standard look and feel across their consumer and workstation OSes. You should be able to buy "Redhat compatible" software (requires RedHat 9.0 or higher). Now, tech companies could STILL release "software for Linux," but the box could state RedHat 9.0 or Mandrake 9.0 or higher.
In that case, there is NO need to drop KDE or GNOME or whatever. Hackers can do whatever they want. However, the "commercial" install should include RPMs or whatever for whatever distribution they want.
RedHat should have a logo certification, as should Mandrake and any other players.
To have the RedHat logo, you should have to sport a "blue curve" look and feel.
In addition, the "installation" programs should rethink the options a bit.
Sure, the Server piece should let you super customize it, and maybe a free downloadable ISO "hacker edition" as well. However, installation options should affect applications, NOT libraries.
I should be able to target a certain edition of RedHat (or Mandrake, or SUSE), and KNOW what libraries are installed. It is absolutely REDICUlOUS how many libraries are options.
Real simple, if KDELIB isn't installed in the "base," then KDE apps aren't "supported."
The problem isn't an issue of technology existing (afterall, Windows has had Progman/Explorer replacements forever), it's an issue of the branding.
Getting software for "Linux" requires knowing what libraries are installed.
Getting software for Windows or Mac OS X requires knowing what version is installed.
I may need to have Jaguar or 10.2.3 or higher, or whatever for my Powerbook software. I never need to have a particular optional library installed.
And THAT is why Linux is having trouble on the desktop.
Leave the technologists alone, but "Linux" companies, reorganize your installation/brand awareness if you want the desktop, corporate or otherwise.
Alex
Seriously... A default of 0.1, WTF? 5.5 worked out much nicer... since my threshold is 8.0. I had some friends send in tests... a legit attachment is okay (I've emailed files around before), but anything suspicious and you can go away...
I also bumped up the forged Outlook headers a bit, as those seem popular as well...
Alex
As long as we don't get routed near Detroit this time...
Alex
On Google.com, it is VERY clear what are paid ads and what are "real" results. With MSN, for example, they list Featured Site (you pay MSN), followed by Overture (you pay per click), following by the Looksmart Directory Listings (used to just pay for submission, for the past year, Looksmart charges $0.15/click for those results).
After the "paid" listings come the Inktomi listings. Those crawler based listings include PFI (pay for inclusion, you pay for daily spidering, but no "boost" in rankings) and the Partner Connect program, where you get free traffic for a week, then negotiate a PPC price for traffic.
If you search MSN, you would get the impression that Featured is editorial (which is kind of is), Sponsered is paid, and Directory/Page results are "real" search results, where the Directory/Page are often actually paid results.
The paid traffic from Inktomi involves an XML feed of terms and results, and your "fake" entries are treated as real entries with a boost for being a paid player.
In addition, for various adult terms, MSN tells you to use a third party adult "search engine," which ISN'T a search engine. It is a big player in the adult space that pays MSN for all the traffic and lists their sites, but does it in a "search engine" look and feel.
That is manipulating the rankings. If Google were to say, charge for the XML entry (either PFI or PPC) into Froogle.com, and then shot the Froogle results interspersed with Google results, that would be manipulating the rankings for money.
That is the manipulation angle.
Now, are paid results any better/worse from objective results if those are manipulated by SEO professionals (so you pay an SEO to get "free traffic" instead of paying the SE for the traffic)?
It's certainly more manipulated.
With a free engine, you could tweak the rankings and sell ads on the side, but not have manipulated editorial.
It's about maintaining a wall between advertisements and editorial, and the only engine that appears to have that wall is Google, and even Google pushes the boundaries.
Alex
The first paper currency was NOT backed in gold. If you look on a bill, it says "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE." Coins were valuable because of the metals involved. The ORIGINAL papermoney, Federal Greenbacks, were issued by the Congress to pay for the Civil War. They were "Legal Tendar" for all PRIVATE debts. Taxes (then simply duties) had to be paid in specie (gold coins) so that the government had hard money by which they could purchase things, particularly from Europe. All PRIVATE individuals had to accept Greenbacks as payment, and failure to accept them got people jailed.
:)
As a result, MASSIVE inflation happened, as the government issued Greenbacks for purchases that were considered legal tender but were backed with nothing.
The gold standard was created later, to allow printed money for convenience, while being exchangable for gold. This avoided inflation and created the paper economy.
The first paper money was backed by the full faith of the Union military.
Alex
I pay around $100/mo. to DirecTV, because I get the HD channels, HBO, and Showtime. During the season, most of my watching is from the 6 networks that I pick up OTA on their digital feed. However, I pay for my entertainment, because I like to have news and random stuff to watch at random hours, even if I mostly use my Replay during the season.
If I had to pay FoxNews $5/mo, CNN $10/mo, HBO $20/mo, Showtime $20/mo, and HD Channels ($20/mo, or worst, $5 for ESPN, $5 for Discovery, and $10 for HDNet and HDNet movies), that would only be $75, but I probably wouldn't pay. Or, I'd only pay for ESPN during football season, etc.
Why? It's the nickle-and-diming, I have to think of each purchase. Instead, I chose to get DirecTV for some HD and general programming, and I can just add services. The $12+$11 for two premium packages is easy to add, but if I needed to send out two bills, I might drop them.
The Internet does need to follow the television model to some extent...
You can get "free" but crappy access (pre-digital OTA sucked, only 10% of people use it), like the free/cheap ISPs. You can get pay (normal channels) like basic cable/satellite (think broadband or premium ISP), and you should be able to get premium (Wall Street Journal, etc). In fact, I think that the problem isn't the cost, it's pulling out your credit card.
When I'm in a store, I have no problem pulling out cash for a $10 purchase or credit for a larger (but still sub $50 purchase, in the normal expenses range - everyone has a cap on the non-thinking payment). But on the Internet, I need to fish out my wallet, create an account, enter my information in, etc.
Microsoft tried it, but their program was annoying and intimidating.
When consumer content will work, will be when AOL starts with a model for their customers to buy premium Time Warner content, then adds more. However, they need to be structured like the cable premium levels.
i.e.:
$25 for basic AOL (plus your phone line) or $40 for broadband AOL - i.e. $40/mo covers the basic Internet service
$20 more for premium AOL (adds basic Time Warner content)
Then be able to add premium content for $5/mo. i.e. when an AOL user hits Slashdot, they can subscribe for $5/mo.
We're willing to pay more if it is centralized and trustworthy.
AOL is the most obvious, as they are the leader in the consumer Internet. However, each ISP should offer these programs.
Then pay-for content will work, but it has to be through my "Internet" bill, NOT through individual credit card transactions.
Micropayments are retarded, nobody wants to think "is this worth 10 cents." Think that wildly successful pay-per-view. Charge $3 - $5 one time (on your next "Internet bill" for specialty content. I can pay $3 for a movie ($5 for PPV), instead of (or in addition) to subscription services. That will work, it's not awkward, and it's not annoying.
Alex
Roman Law is only binding in Louisianna. The other 49 states are common law states, with all British Commonlaw prior to 1776 being binding unless overruled by the legislature...
I remember reading that the right to trial by combat wasn't removed until 1780 somthing...
Alex
I'm also typing away on my Powerbook.
So we've moved most users to OS X, a few special purpose Windows machines (Quickbooks, two designers that bring their own Windows machines, and one developer choosing between Linux and OS X).
If I cared about speed for my Unix workstations, it's a fair comparison. My OS + Applications would be run on Redhat 9 using GCC to compile under Linux.
In all honesty, the numbers aren't that meaningful, as we wouldn't consider a dual-G5 (or a dual-Xeon), but it is nice to know that Apple has "caught up." Maybe the P4 is faster or maybe the G5 is faster, but it's pretty similar.
To me, that matters, as the guy who is deciding played with an old G4 Cube with Jaguar, and it was too slow for him. Knowing that it will run OS X fast is critical in his decision.
If I run a Linux machine, the apps will be built with GCC. For Windows tests, they showed the Photoshop + Mathematica tests. For the pure crunching tests, they compared OS X to a Redhat workstation, not an unreasonable comparison.
Alex
We set 4 of them up for junior employees... They happily chug away with Mandrake on them. Lindows was kind of neat, but we wanted machines that would listen to our LDAP server (running OS X). We just mount the OS X Users share point via NFS and away they go. Each machine has Mozilla on it plus an email application, and they are useful for our web researchers.
They don't have the maintenance headache (and cost) of a Windows machine, and are cheaper than the eMacs that we otherwise use for low end computing.
Alex
Don't get me wrong, as a Gadget freak, I buy LOTS of products designed/created in Japan. I find East Asian cultures fascinating to study, and if my red-neck ass takes a trip outside of North America, it will be to Asia.
That said, I don't buy that Japan's militaristic culture has changed (anymore than the Prussian culture has changed in Germany, just the outlet), just adapted. The Japanese businessmen are known for ruthless dealings with outsiders, despite a consensus driven culture internally.
In the 80s, Japan was threatening to overtake the US economy. It's the second largest economy now, and if you recall the Japan-bashing in the early 90s recession, people thought that it would become the largest economy withing 15 years.
Japan expects to defeat the US eventually, but they keep quiet.
The bravado that the Americans display is off-putting to most. The bravado displayed by Europeans is silly and absurd, given Europes collapse over the past 100 years (remember, they used to run the world, now they run expensive, over-priced, inadequate health care systems), it's bizarre.
East Asian cultures have a longer outlook than Western cultures, and are less individualistic, which results in a different mindset. While the Japanese business leaders may be slowly plotting to take over the world, the average Japanese person doesn't feel the need to be rude and obnoxious to the average American. It's a different culture, and it lets the US and Japan be close friends at a government level. The Americans want to act like they run the world, and Japan is happy to let the Americans feel that way. None of the Asian leaders feel the needs to make rude and derogatory remarks towards our leadership the way that the Europeans do. Rather then suffering from an inferiority complex, they simply focus on the goal.
Don't get me started on the French... Cowardly monkeys...
Alex
You're full of it. MIT has their network run properly. The class of IPs is segmented on meaningful lines, and all machines have an IP. There is no need for MIT to switch to a hacked segment because the rest of the world wants to avoid switching to IPv6.
MIT and other institutions that were instrumental in creating the Internet as we know it got larger blocks of IPs that others get now. So what? There is a solution that has plenty of addresses.
If people don't want to roll out IPv6, I don't see why others should pay for the decision. MIT runs their network correctly. There is nofirewall, all machines are in DNS, it's the RIGHT WAY to run a network. I don't see why MIT should switch to a hacky solution because others are being silly.
Besides, who is this group going to do the requiring? The Slashdot masses? Give me a break.
The people that created the Internet have more IPs. Everyone that wants to be a free rider on the research done by others can deal with what is left.
You can't just declare everything a shared resource because you want to. Those IPs are MIT's, by virtue of what MIT did when IPv4 was becoming a reality.
What did you do to entitle yourself to ANY IPs?
Alex
My house had a /16 address (not a B technically, B is the range that are carved out as Bs, it was a part of an A) ... I ran it for a few terms. We were only allowed to use 254 addresses, but the rest were held for future use. We weren't allowed DHCP, it had to have static IPs with names assigned in their cryptic system.
/16 subnet isn't used is none of your business.
They were experimenting with rolling out DHCP across another of the "C" classes, and other things. The point was that you'd eventually want more addresses, and MIT has them for being first.
It also makes MIT's routing easier, as every cluster could have a segment, etc.
MIT has a class A by virtue of MIT's involvement in the whole project. What MIT does with those addresses is their business. They have given each off-campus living group 254 addresses. The fact that the rest of that
Alex
SCO needs money to pursue legal case. Microsoft has money and wants to cover their ass. SCO also wants a high profile license to help bludgeon IBM. It makes sense for all involved, especially if Microsoft was considering it for a while.
.5X and 1.5X in legal fees, AND a 20% chance that we pay 10X in royalties and between .5X and 2.5X in legal fees. Therefore, it is cheaper to pay now.
They probably got a license on the cheap. Should SCO beat IBM, the license fees would go up. I'm pretty certain that the bean counters made this decision.
If we pay now, we pay X. If we don't pay now, there is an 80% chance that we pay 0 in royalties, but pay between
I don't think that it was the lawyers, I think that it was the accountants. Besides, accountants HATE uncertainties. This way they get off the hook and can focus on their business, instead of another legal case.
Alex
Come on, where are all the European users talking about America being facist now? I want to hear about how the EU values privacy and the US is run by a nazi-like regime...
Come on guys, let's be consistent.
Alex
What is that weird symbol that you use for your dollars?
:)
That's so colorful...
That's so silly looking...
It looks like Monopoly money...
How much is it worth in real money?
All sorts of fun things that American's say of other currencies...
You got what, two weeks left of school? Gotta be excited, high school in just 4 months!
Hold on cowboy, the US has recently established global precedent. Failure to abide by our views results in your being an "illegal" outlaw regime, and we don't allow those to remain. For reference: see Taliban in Afghanistan, Baath Party in Iraq for recent example, or the Emperor in Japan and the Nazi Gov't in Germany...
:)
:-) ) aren't going to dismiss the US courts because a bunch of college kids like to laugh at the US...
You don't have to respect our culture, you may not respect our President, but you WILL respect our Aircraft Carriers.
All kidding aside, Common Law Courts (49 states in the US, several countries in the EU I believe... I know that LA in the US is on the Roman/Latin system, as are Italy and France, and Britain is obviously on the Common Law system, but I forget who else is what) tend to defer to each other's precedents when possible (but only for rulings on Common Law)....
However, a serious ruling in the US will affect ANYONE in the EU that does business in the US. In fact, business leaders and the movers and shakers (re: the 8 people in Europe that work over 35 hours/week
Alex
Well, as clearly stated in the article (hint), the outdated systems on the shuttle is a BIG part of the problem. Each system on the shuttle is autonomous, and requires one or more individuals on the ground to monitor it the entire trip. This results in thousands of people on the ground monitoring these things. Alternatively, if you modernized the equipment, you could DRASTICALLY reduce the people required to monitor the Shuttle while in orbit.
This could save NASA billions in costs. The problem is that NASA wants a new device that is massively better than the shuttle, instead of doing a CBA and get a fleet that is modern, 2-4 times safer, and costs half to operate.
The problem is that NASA won't go with replacement programs until they get a 200-fold safety improvement and a 10-fold cost savings. So as a result, we are spending a fortune on an aging fleet of increasingly primitive vehicles.
Instead, it would be nice if NASA would go for 2-4x safety improvements and 50% cost savings, and then build a new reusable launch vehicle every 10-20 years.
If we left alone or increased NASA funding, we could support perpetual research on new shuttles, with each generation bringing down in costs. If the operating costs dropped, you could save the money and use it towards research. The shuttle program produced a LOT of technology for the US economy (remember everything was space-age in the 80s), and new research programs will continue to do so. However, just relaunching the same thing for billions doing retarded thing like ants in space isn't pushing technology forward, it's just spending money to protect NASA's turf.
I had a Blackberry... hated it... drove me nuts after a few weeks....
Although the first few weeks when I felt all important were pretty cool.
The Blackberry phone is HUGE...
Alex
I have a Samsung i330, it was the only PDA phone that I could find that would work with my Powerbook and my existing Sprint number (only number that I gave out for about 3 or 4 years).
It absolutely SUCKS! Now, as someone that fails to carry much around, it's useful... now I have a PDA the 85% of the time I remember my cel phone. However, as a phone it blows. Everytime the software crashes, I lose my voice dialing settings. Without voice dialing, the lack of a real keypad is a killer.
I'll admit, actually carrying around a PDA is really useful, but the smart devices all suck.
A blackberry addict at another company that we work closely with LOVES his Blackberry phone. However, the thing is awful.
Yeah, we all are willing to suffer because we need more communications, but don't doubt for a moment that these devices REALLY, REALLY, REALLY suck.
The problem is that everyone throws tech at the problem, and the UI suffers. My phone is a PDA first and a phone second, that's REALLY, REALLY, REALLY annoying.
MS will not likely "win" in the cel market, it's not their bread and butter. The MS strategy is "cheap" and "good enough." PocketPC hasn't deplaced Palm DESPITE Palm's idiotic moves because they haven't been cheap. They are, however, "good enough," and many people buy the more "full-featured" device, whether they need/want it or not.
Extra features on phones need to be well integrated... they aren't...
Alex
Insert CD, on insert, iTunes rips mine at 192 AAC (replacing 192 MP3). Magically, there is a directory for each artist and each CD. I moved mine out of my home directory and into /Documents/Music, I don't really know why though.... It's automatic.
What's great, is that sometimes CDDB has bad data... well I can mass change the CD's info. It's absolutely terrific.
What's nice is that I don't "copy music" to my MP3 player. I have music on the road. I mean, I plug in my iPod.
I have enough to worry about without worrying about my music. When I get CDs, I order from Amazon, and they come to the office. When the CD arrives, I pop it in, and iTunes rips it. I then make a copy of the CD w/ CD Text (via Toast). The copy goes in the Jukebox in the home stereo, and the original goes in a drawer with the other original CDs.
Now I have it at home in the stereo, in the car, if I'm on the Subway, at the gym, and at the office. How does it get everywhere, the iPod plugs in.
If something cheesy (heard from a friend or on FM/XM Radio), I can go buy the track for $1. No more scouring for music.
I have music everywhere, and it doesn't take any time anymore. Go me!
iTunes 4 is pretty slick, Rendezvous sharing is cool... Let me go see what the other guys at the office listen too...
Alex
The iPod costs a lot more... Because you'll start really loving your iPod, and wishing your computer behaved similarly. Then you go out and buy a Mac for $1k, and start liking it. Then you want it as your primary computer, and you end up with a Powerbook...
:)
Pretty soon that iPod cost you $5k...
Alex