You might start by considering how little you see of a church's community involvement just by looking at the outside of their main facility. Try, for example, Mission Metroplex in Texas. Most of the large churches in the area contribute heavily to its charitable work. Their facilities are spartan and totally focused on serving those most in need within the community. (If you are ever in Dallas, stop by and see for yourself. Bring your work clothes.;-) Mrs. Burgin and her staff begin their day at 4 a.m. and work late into the night, and they coordinate thousands of unpaid volunteers who directly help hundreds of thousands and influence literally millions of people in the Dallas area.
Perhaps you are seeing uncaring mega-churches because you are looking for uncaring mega-churches? Or perhaps I see incredible community enrichment by Christian investment because I'm looking for it, who knows.
(Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with this organization in any way. Their reputation simply precedes them.)
This [JSF] project will produce fighters that will be less capable than the F-22 as a pure fighter, but cheaper and more tailored to their respective missions.
Your kinda-sorta imply that the JSF (actually F-35 now) is a subset of F-22 capability, but that's only true of the "A" (Air Force) variant. The "B" (Marine / Royal Marine) variant can take off and land vertically; the "C" (Navy) variant can operate from aircraft carriers. The F-22 has no "B" or "C" capability at all.
Just to be very clear.;-)
And it does take an inordinate amount of time and development effort to come out with a fighter.
Exactly. If Japan has a full-scale model, they're only 15 years away from production. "Will ATD-X achieve air superiority over the F-22, which Washington refuses to sell to Tokyo?" Probably not for a few decades - but by then, US aircraft won't require pilots...
as far as I'm aware, the delay with the -22 come from the fly-by-wire soft (i.e. the airframe), and the advanced "battle" avionics suite - again feel free to correct me -.
OK. I understand that the primary delay with the Raptor came from congress cutting the budget every year (almost), causing much of the program schedule to be spent reworking the program schedule. The repeated schedule extensions allowed many of the electronic components to go out of production, forcing "mid-life" redesigns for initial production. The delays domino like that, absorbing the "cost savings" claimed by congresscritters for "budget cuts".
Fly-by-wire software wasn't an issue (F-16 worked out those issues). Avionics software did cause a few problems (most famously the computer crash when crossing the dateline en route to Japan), but those delays were small compared to the impact of the constant budget cuts.
Previous generation aircraft are updated often - for example, F-16 has been through many versions, the latest ("Block 60") including features such as "glass cockpit" color electronics and dramatically extended range. But no revision will ever make an F-16 or F-15 stealthy, or super-cruise enabled, or capable of vertical takeoff and landing, or carrier capable. For that you need a complete redesign - thus the F-22 and F-35.
The allied military spends heavily on war games and studies to determine the effect of these new capabilities on the modern battlefield. They are very stingy with their budgets - if they are willing to do "battle" in congress to fund new aircraft, it's because the games and studies show dramatic improvements for them.
This I surmise from reading a lot of industry trade rags and such. And likewise, feel free to correct me if you feel I've misunderstood the situation in any respect.
Microsoft certainly knows how to support their programmers, but could you address why you believe Maemo is a non-starter for hobbyists? I've programmed it as a hobby since 1.0, and it's always been fun and very forgiving to me. And with Ubuntu lining up behind Nokia, long-term viability appears to be a non-issue. And the Python support is top shelf, too.;-)
First, why do you assume everyone in his business space has been using Windows successfully for over a decade?
Second, why do you assume that the "entire user base" must be retrained?
Third, why is it more realistic to stay with Windows than to switch to an alternative that offers a competitive advantage?
For the first, a few areas not dominated by Windows "for over a decade" would included computer animation (SGI Irix held that title 10 years ago), open source software development (Linux succeeded Unix, with no Windows era at all), and pretty much any embedded device (e.g., medical equipment - where the first Windows-powered cardiac stress tester was inflicted on me just last year, and it crashed after 30 minutes of jogging and breath-holding, forcing me to start the test over after the technicians did the three-fingered salute). Just because your business space has been Microsoft's profit center for over a decade doesn't mean that's been the reality for the rest of the universe.
For the second, major transitions in the market virtually never follow a "big bang" model. Windows replaced Unix in the engineering space over a period of at least 10 years - but in small steps, such that the engineers picked up their new skills in small batches and often by self-training. Same with desktop publishing (where Macs are still a potent force) and education (ditto). It's even true with Window's succeeding DOS in the general purpose business desktop space, where each Windows release (3.0, 3.1, 95, and 98) saw another fragment of the market switch. Thus, the retraining was very gradual and manageable. Why would a theoretical transition to Linux be any different?
For the third, Linux offers market advantage today in modest but growing markets. I'm very aware of this in my own job, where we've replaced several hundred Windows-based engineering desktops with Linux desktops because the 4 GB limit of 32-bit desktop Windows is inadequate for the applications, and only on Linux is a 64-bit version of the application available. The proposed Vista migration just makes this problem worse, as the OS consumes even more desperately needed RAM. As a side benefit, the new Linux computers are not bogged down with constant virus scanning, so the applications themselves run almost twice as fast on the same hardware - and that's a benefit upper management understands all too well. The success of this transition has led to proposals for transitions in other business areas - where it makes sense, and where a competitive advantage can be demonstrated.
And yes, I'm a 25+ year continuously employed veteran of the computer market, starting before IBM conquered the world with DOS. Would you care to compare "real job" credentials?;-)
Linux replacing Windows in the business space is as much of a long shot today as Windows replacing Unix in the engineering space was in the early 1990's - yet the latter happened, incrementally but inexorably. I wouldn't bet my career against Linux if I were you - it's showing a remarkably similar pattern as previous successes such as (say) Windows itself.
Those "kids" you dissed today may well have the last laugh.
MSH is optional for current XP and Vista products, but will be installed by default with Server 2008. So it's rather awkward to claim 'dir' is not a Windows command.;-)
if it helps you can always knock up a batch file called fol.bat so you can type FOL instead
I graduated university in 1984, and my employer immediately enrolled me in a Unix class. I was much impressed by the configurability of csh, and (having used Atari OS/A+ and IBM DOS during an internship with NASA), immediately set up a long list of aliases in my.cshrc. I mapped 'ls' to 'DIR', 'cp' to 'COPY', 'mv' to 'RENAME', etc.
I was almost thrown out of the class by the outraged instructor.:-)
Well, sure. 'ls' gives you a catalog of files on the disk, while 'cat' lists one or more of the files' contents. But Windows' 'dir' is much harder to remember - it just means "Drrr, I wonder what's in this folder?"
how will you *know* that the source they claim went into the product is unmodified?
The idea is that I can examine the product's source code, recompile it using my own tools, and then use my own recompiled version. Yes, it's possible that the compiler I choose may be specifically designed to recognize that source code, and then inject a trojan into the binary that wasn't in the source - but of course, I've examined the source code of my compiler and built that from source, too!
Now the compiler that I've used to compile my compiler could be designed to recognize its source, and inject the code into the binary that will recognize the product's source code, and inject a trojan into the product's binary. It's been done before (http://www.clueless.com/jargon3.0.0/back_door.html).
But if the compiler and product come from independent entities, the odds are much greater that I'm using what I think I'm using than if I just blindly trust the product's manufacturer to provide an unmodified binary.
Like Patent Trolls, but all they do is GPL obvious code...
You don't "GPL" code, you "copyright" code. If a person wanted to copyright "obvious code" - and I don't pretend to have any earthly idea what that means - so that they can sue for damages later, then the GPL would hurt their cause. After all, nobody can use your copyrighted code without a license, and the GPL licenses your copyrighted code for free.
I was using KDE in 2000, so I don't have a basis for comparison - but on my AMD x65, single core machine, the menus with icons draw faster than I can blink (even my games menu, which drops off the screen:-), tooltips on the application icons fly by as fast as I swipe my mouse, and switching applications and workspaces is near instantaneous. So yeah, I guess it's fixed.
I can't remember how long it takes to load Gnome - I haven't rebooted in 5 months, so who cares???
Return to Gnome, switch to KDE, or stay with Fluxbox - again, who cares???
? Perhaps I was unclear. I don't mean that OLPC is "dumbed down" (it's not). I mean that the custom UI is designed for self-directed exploration of both the computer and the world accessible to the computer, with minimal IT infrastructure. This is simply not true of off-the-shelf laptops, as anyone who gets to help maintain them will testify. (And I trust you're aware that the child can easily switch from the custom UI to Gnome, right? At least, the one I played with at PyCon did, and the speaker indicated that was the plan for production.)
Thus, a child in Nigeria, let's call her Fa'izah, handed a stock Windows computer (your words), would have [a] no problem or [b] much problem with the following?
Connecting wirelessly to another stock Windows laptop in the next village, 1 km away, which is not connected to the Internet, and is owned by (let's say) Maimunaand, and collaboratively working with her on an art project;
Figure out how to connect her new friend Maimuna to the Internet, using a peer-to-peer multi-hop mesh network from Maimuna's laptop to Fa'izah's laptop to the satellite dish at the school, 2 km in the opposite direction from Maimuna, so Maimuna can browse Wikipedia for ideas on the art project;
After taking a wrong turn in the project, "rolling back" several saves to the version that looked best, and restarting from there; and
Having finished the project, and become interested in how Microsoft Paint draws patterns, look at the source code to figure it out for herself.
That is the type of collaborative, self-directed educational experience that OLPC is intending to foster. Sorry to sound like an evangelist - I'm not even affiliated with OLPC in any way. But as a teacher, I get pretty jazzed at the possibilities of some of their innovations, and hope to see them in the mainstream soon.
And the OS UI is written in Python, not compatible with anything out there.
The point of providing a UI in a dynamic language is to make it easily modified by the children (which is not under-estimating them, IMHO). Python is a good choice because (1) it runs on pretty much every other computer and virtual platform in the world, so the knowledge gained will transfer wherever the child goes, (2) it's easier to learn than most languages (*far* easier than C++!), and (3) it's a full strength language promoted and used heavily by some of the largest corporations in the world - at Google, for instance, 'python is one of the 3 "official languages" alongside with C++ and Java' http://panela.blog-city.com/python_at_google_greg_stein__sdforum.htm, not to mention NASA, Lockheed Martin, Industrial Light and Magic... well, you can google if you like.
The XO isn't perfect, but I obviously think rather highly of it, and believe it is unorthodox in all the right places. If you still don't see why, we are probably just looking for very different things in an educational laptop. Time will tell which approach prevails, I suppose.
Sure, a Western adult would prefer an Eee - I can't wait to test drive one myself. But you omit a few other differences that demonstrate why OLPC is better for their target market - children in developing nations.
Eee networking - conventional wifi-to-Internet
OLPC networking - mesh ad hoc OR wifi-to-Internet
Eee screen - conventional indoor only
OLPC screen - unique dual-mode, clearly readable even in bright sunlight
Eee hardware - conventional non-rugged Western office / home environment; requires stable AC power
OLPC hardware - sealed against elements, child-tolerant; runs on AC power, hand or foot power, solar cell
Eee software - conventional Linux
OLPC software - highly customized for non-computer-literate children
Eee development - requires conventional developer tools; system restore requires external media
OLPC development - "show source" button allows children to explore and modify most aspects of the environment with nothing more than the built-in Python editor; and versioned filesystem ensures machine can be rolled all the way back to original state with no external media support
The OLPC is very unconventional, and is much better suited to children in developing classrooms than any other machine on the market. *That* is what makes it special, not an arbitrarily low price point.
Certainly wouldn't be the first time, but this just doesn't smell right.
Precinct captain is an elected post, at least where I live. (We tossed ours out a few years back, for giving last names ending in A-F to one short line, and G-Z to one excruciatingly long one. Needless to say, the G-Z folks carried the next precinct captain election in a landslide, and threw the bum out!)
Predominantly black precincts tend to vote Democratic rather than Republican.
So are you asserting that the Democratic party is rigging elections to help Republicans? Or am I missing something here?
The secret ballot requirement is one really good reason. Distrust of banks would be another. Laws against poll taxes would be a third. But it's certainly a creative idea, so don't stop brainstorming.:-)
...on what grounds would you even possibly try to claim grounds for a suit?
A scenario such as: You implement copy protection to prevent "theft of intellectual property". Your copy protection scheme malfunctions, and exposes private / proprietary data. Lawyers jump your hide based on various state anti-spyware statutes. Lawyers profit, you don't.
Caveat: I'm speaking of corporations in the USA here - I know nothing of how corporations in other countries approach software licensing, but I deal with it on a daily basis where I work. If I sound like I believe corporations are mostly about lawsuit avoidance when selecting software, then I'm coming through clearly.:-)
If you choose to go the fee-per-user route, corporate customers will expect the ability to easily manage their licenses conveniently from one or more central servers. The value you are adding to them is that they can easily prove that their copies are licensed by running a simple report, and that report is an affirmative defense against any claims of illegitimate use. It also gives management confidence that their employees are not making copies without their knowledge and exposing them to legal risk.
The best approach if you choose this route is to license an existing license manager - ask your primary customers which ones they use, and go with the most popular in your business sector. Of course, the license fee will come out of your profits, but that's the solution your customers will appreciate.
Alternately, you can offer a reasonable "site license" fee based on the number of users of your software that they believe they will have (*not* their employee total). At annual maintenance renewal time, each customer counts up how many people are actually using the software, and the renewal fee is based on that. This adds the burden to your customer of tracking installations, but also provides an affirmative defense ("we have a site license!"). Of course, you'll need to trust your customers more with this one, as a dishonest customer could "miscount" to save money. Legitimate corporations, though, would never intentionally game the system out of fear of legal repercussions.
In NO case should you pull a stupid stunt like phoning home. Where I work at least, we reject any candidate application that discloses spyware-type behavior in the license agreement (unlike home users, corporations have lawyers that read license agreements - and modify most of them). If an application phones home without disclosure, it's blacklisted at a minimum. A lawsuit in your direction is certainly a possibility as well.
The "correct" answer on/. is to open source the code and sell support services, of course. This may work quite well, too, although in some sectors corporations consider open source to be less desirable than commercial code because of the cost of verifying that you actually own the code you're licensing. Smart corporations audit the source code of open source applications before deploying them, and correct any illegitimate code inclusion (e.g., mixing code with incompatible licenses); it proves "due diligence" in the event of a lawsuit. They don't have this expense with closed source apps, because they can't - and that means they can't be accused of lack of due diligence for not examining the code. The law is just like that.:-(
The good news with the open source approach is that you're well-positioned competitively - once validated, the application can be deployed and used extensively, and then comes the "Who can we pay to support this?" opportunities. Code auditing can work in your favor here - once you're proven "clean", you'll be everywhere, diminishing the value add a competitor can offer.
Personally, I would open source the app and provide a detailed audit of all the code at the same location you host the source code; this proves the code is "clean" and safe to use, and provides optimal value from a corporate perspective. Offer custom services built around the free code, and that pays the bills (if you're good). ActiveState is one successful company that uses this approach (they wandered into the fee-per-user area with Komodo, but that's now moving toward open source as well - another indication that this may be the best approach in the long run).
Could be. I can only vouch for the exceptionally involved and careful job that my parents (born 1919 and 1921) did in trying to raise me, as well as the parenting I saw for my friends as I was growing up. I didn't appreciate the sacrifices and tears then, but having raised 3 kids of my own, I do now. So whatever you may think, *I* still think they are the greatest!
"The Greatest Generation" did much more that just show up in the right place at the right time. It's easy to look back now and say how easy it was to make so many right decisions at such a critical time in history, but back then they struggled with overwhelming issues and yet managed to be united and purposeful - and therefore overcame.
Among other accomplishments, they:
Fought and won a two front war against two powerful, highly immoral military dictatorships that not only sought to conquer the world (in reality, not Hollywood-ese) but to murder entire races and classes of people;
Rebuilt both defeated countries into modern economic, republican powers and allies (the allies helped, of course, but I'm drawing a distinction with the punative post-WWI "reparations" laws that proved so foolish);
Laid a working foundation for international dispute resolution (as opposed to the worthless League of Nations) that has survived to this day without become irrelevant (for the most part);
Generated a huge post-war economic boom that dramatically improved the quality of life for a large percentage of the population; and
Laid the foundations upon which the Cold War could be won without WWIII and (especially) the use of nuclear weapons.
All in all, not a bad days work IMHO.
(The "enormous debt habit" was not a product of The Greatest Generation, who were a uniformly thrifty and cash-based society except during WWII itself. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hi st.pdf (PDF file, starting pp 126) for the data - but national debt relative to GDP declined every year from 1946 (end of WWII) until 1981. The "enormous debt habit" was my generation, Bucky - show a little respect!:-/)
I don't propose TGG were perfect by any means. Discrimination against certain classes of people were not eradicated (though they certainly didn't invent the concept!), although some of the worst abuses were indeed addressed (lynchings, for example, dropped out of popular acceptance, and the accomplishments of some Blacks were finally acknowledged and recognized, if only out of embarrassment for how much had gone unrecognized in the past). And the foundations for defeat were also laid, resulting most notably in the Vietnam war (where allied soldiers were required to bomb empty jungles lest we hurt any Russian advisors - idiots!).
But compared to the moral confusion and lack of clear and unified purpose in the current generation, I think they did pretty darned good against overwhelming odds, and are worthy of the title bestowed by the popular media. YMMV, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
You might start by considering how little you see of a church's community involvement just by looking at the outside of their main facility. Try, for example, Mission Metroplex in Texas. Most of the large churches in the area contribute heavily to its charitable work. Their facilities are spartan and totally focused on serving those most in need within the community. (If you are ever in Dallas, stop by and see for yourself. Bring your work clothes. ;-) Mrs. Burgin and her staff begin their day at 4 a.m. and work late into the night, and they coordinate thousands of unpaid volunteers who directly help hundreds of thousands and influence literally millions of people in the Dallas area.
Perhaps you are seeing uncaring mega-churches because you are looking for uncaring mega-churches? Or perhaps I see incredible community enrichment by Christian investment because I'm looking for it, who knows.
(Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with this organization in any way. Their reputation simply precedes them.)
Yep. Good thing nobody in the USA is working on UAV technology yet! (ahem)
Your kinda-sorta imply that the JSF (actually F-35 now) is a subset of F-22 capability, but that's only true of the "A" (Air Force) variant. The "B" (Marine / Royal Marine) variant can take off and land vertically; the "C" (Navy) variant can operate from aircraft carriers. The F-22 has no "B" or "C" capability at all.
Just to be very clear. ;-)
Exactly. If Japan has a full-scale model, they're only 15 years away from production. "Will ATD-X achieve air superiority over the F-22, which Washington refuses to sell to Tokyo?" Probably not for a few decades - but by then, US aircraft won't require pilots...
OK. I understand that the primary delay with the Raptor came from congress cutting the budget every year (almost), causing much of the program schedule to be spent reworking the program schedule. The repeated schedule extensions allowed many of the electronic components to go out of production, forcing "mid-life" redesigns for initial production. The delays domino like that, absorbing the "cost savings" claimed by congresscritters for "budget cuts".
Fly-by-wire software wasn't an issue (F-16 worked out those issues). Avionics software did cause a few problems (most famously the computer crash when crossing the dateline en route to Japan), but those delays were small compared to the impact of the constant budget cuts.
Previous generation aircraft are updated often - for example, F-16 has been through many versions, the latest ("Block 60") including features such as "glass cockpit" color electronics and dramatically extended range. But no revision will ever make an F-16 or F-15 stealthy, or super-cruise enabled, or capable of vertical takeoff and landing, or carrier capable. For that you need a complete redesign - thus the F-22 and F-35.
The allied military spends heavily on war games and studies to determine the effect of these new capabilities on the modern battlefield. They are very stingy with their budgets - if they are willing to do "battle" in congress to fund new aircraft, it's because the games and studies show dramatic improvements for them.
This I surmise from reading a lot of industry trade rags and such. And likewise, feel free to correct me if you feel I've misunderstood the situation in any respect.
Microsoft certainly knows how to support their programmers, but could you address why you believe Maemo is a non-starter for hobbyists? I've programmed it as a hobby since 1.0, and it's always been fun and very forgiving to me. And with Ubuntu lining up behind Nokia, long-term viability appears to be a non-issue. And the Python support is top shelf, too. ;-)
Oh, my, where to begin?
First, why do you assume everyone in his business space has been using Windows successfully for over a decade?
Second, why do you assume that the "entire user base" must be retrained?
Third, why is it more realistic to stay with Windows than to switch to an alternative that offers a competitive advantage?
For the first, a few areas not dominated by Windows "for over a decade" would included computer animation (SGI Irix held that title 10 years ago), open source software development (Linux succeeded Unix, with no Windows era at all), and pretty much any embedded device (e.g., medical equipment - where the first Windows-powered cardiac stress tester was inflicted on me just last year, and it crashed after 30 minutes of jogging and breath-holding, forcing me to start the test over after the technicians did the three-fingered salute). Just because your business space has been Microsoft's profit center for over a decade doesn't mean that's been the reality for the rest of the universe.
For the second, major transitions in the market virtually never follow a "big bang" model. Windows replaced Unix in the engineering space over a period of at least 10 years - but in small steps, such that the engineers picked up their new skills in small batches and often by self-training. Same with desktop publishing (where Macs are still a potent force) and education (ditto). It's even true with Window's succeeding DOS in the general purpose business desktop space, where each Windows release (3.0, 3.1, 95, and 98) saw another fragment of the market switch. Thus, the retraining was very gradual and manageable. Why would a theoretical transition to Linux be any different?
For the third, Linux offers market advantage today in modest but growing markets. I'm very aware of this in my own job, where we've replaced several hundred Windows-based engineering desktops with Linux desktops because the 4 GB limit of 32-bit desktop Windows is inadequate for the applications, and only on Linux is a 64-bit version of the application available. The proposed Vista migration just makes this problem worse, as the OS consumes even more desperately needed RAM. As a side benefit, the new Linux computers are not bogged down with constant virus scanning, so the applications themselves run almost twice as fast on the same hardware - and that's a benefit upper management understands all too well. The success of this transition has led to proposals for transitions in other business areas - where it makes sense, and where a competitive advantage can be demonstrated.
And yes, I'm a 25+ year continuously employed veteran of the computer market, starting before IBM conquered the world with DOS. Would you care to compare "real job" credentials? ;-)
Linux replacing Windows in the business space is as much of a long shot today as Windows replacing Unix in the engineering space was in the early 1990's - yet the latter happened, incrementally but inexorably. I wouldn't bet my career against Linux if I were you - it's showing a remarkably similar pattern as previous successes such as (say) Windows itself.
Those "kids" you dissed today may well have the last laugh.
Well, after 18 long months of extensive discussion and incorporating feedback, it was certainly a very thoughtful jerking of the knee.
Somehow, criticizing RMS for a clause you fantasize might one day exist in GPL v4 doesn't lend credence to your anti-GPL argument.
Now, don't go letting a Linux guy show up your lack of Windows knowledge! ;-) Not only is the relatively crippled cmd.exe a full Windows XP dir-lovin' app according to Microsoft http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/cmd.mspx?mfr=true, but the new and advanced Microsoft Windows PowerShell or MSH http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_PowerShell uses dir as well. (Dir is also aliased to ls, in a nod to popular *nix shells.)
MSH is optional for current XP and Vista products, but will be installed by default with Server 2008. So it's rather awkward to claim 'dir' is not a Windows command. ;-)
I graduated university in 1984, and my employer immediately enrolled me in a Unix class. I was much impressed by the configurability of csh, and (having used Atari OS/A+ and IBM DOS during an internship with NASA), immediately set up a long list of aliases in my .cshrc. I mapped 'ls' to 'DIR', 'cp' to 'COPY', 'mv' to 'RENAME', etc.
I was almost thrown out of the class by the outraged instructor. :-)
Well, sure. 'ls' gives you a catalog of files on the disk, while 'cat' lists one or more of the files' contents. But Windows' 'dir' is much harder to remember - it just means "Drrr, I wonder what's in this folder?"
No, he means (K)(X)(Edu)Ubuntu. And Mobile Edition, too. :) :)
Say, you don't happen to be a moron with an MBA who works for an Internet wine retailer, do you?
The idea is that I can examine the product's source code, recompile it using my own tools, and then use my own recompiled version. Yes, it's possible that the compiler I choose may be specifically designed to recognize that source code, and then inject a trojan into the binary that wasn't in the source - but of course, I've examined the source code of my compiler and built that from source, too!
Now the compiler that I've used to compile my compiler could be designed to recognize its source, and inject the code into the binary that will recognize the product's source code, and inject a trojan into the product's binary. It's been done before (http://www.clueless.com/jargon3.0.0/back_door.html).
But if the compiler and product come from independent entities, the odds are much greater that I'm using what I think I'm using than if I just blindly trust the product's manufacturer to provide an unmodified binary.
Clear?
You don't "GPL" code, you "copyright" code. If a person wanted to copyright "obvious code" - and I don't pretend to have any earthly idea what that means - so that they can sue for damages later, then the GPL would hurt their cause. After all, nobody can use your copyrighted code without a license, and the GPL licenses your copyrighted code for free.
I was using KDE in 2000, so I don't have a basis for comparison - but on my AMD x65, single core machine, the menus with icons draw faster than I can blink (even my games menu, which drops off the screen :-), tooltips on the application icons fly by as fast as I swipe my mouse, and switching applications and workspaces is near instantaneous. So yeah, I guess it's fixed.
I can't remember how long it takes to load Gnome - I haven't rebooted in 5 months, so who cares???
Return to Gnome, switch to KDE, or stay with Fluxbox - again, who cares???
? Perhaps I was unclear. I don't mean that OLPC is "dumbed down" (it's not). I mean that the custom UI is designed for self-directed exploration of both the computer and the world accessible to the computer, with minimal IT infrastructure. This is simply not true of off-the-shelf laptops, as anyone who gets to help maintain them will testify. (And I trust you're aware that the child can easily switch from the custom UI to Gnome, right? At least, the one I played with at PyCon did, and the speaker indicated that was the plan for production.)
Thus, a child in Nigeria, let's call her Fa'izah, handed a stock Windows computer (your words), would have [a] no problem or [b] much problem with the following?
That is the type of collaborative, self-directed educational experience that OLPC is intending to foster. Sorry to sound like an evangelist - I'm not even affiliated with OLPC in any way. But as a teacher, I get pretty jazzed at the possibilities of some of their innovations, and hope to see them in the mainstream soon.
Uh, Microsoft? http://www.codeplex.com/IronPython/ (Or maybe I misunderstand what you mean by "not compatible with anything"?)
The point of providing a UI in a dynamic language is to make it easily modified by the children (which is not under-estimating them, IMHO). Python is a good choice because (1) it runs on pretty much every other computer and virtual platform in the world, so the knowledge gained will transfer wherever the child goes, (2) it's easier to learn than most languages (*far* easier than C++!), and (3) it's a full strength language promoted and used heavily by some of the largest corporations in the world - at Google, for instance, 'python is one of the 3 "official languages" alongside with C++ and Java' http://panela.blog-city.com/python_at_google_greg_stein__sdforum.htm, not to mention NASA, Lockheed Martin, Industrial Light and Magic... well, you can google if you like.
The XO isn't perfect, but I obviously think rather highly of it, and believe it is unorthodox in all the right places. If you still don't see why, we are probably just looking for very different things in an educational laptop. Time will tell which approach prevails, I suppose.
Sure, a Western adult would prefer an Eee - I can't wait to test drive one myself. But you omit a few other differences that demonstrate why OLPC is better for their target market - children in developing nations.
Eee networking - conventional wifi-to-Internet
OLPC networking - mesh ad hoc OR wifi-to-Internet
Eee screen - conventional indoor only
OLPC screen - unique dual-mode, clearly readable even in bright sunlight
Eee hardware - conventional non-rugged Western office / home environment; requires stable AC power
OLPC hardware - sealed against elements, child-tolerant; runs on AC power, hand or foot power, solar cell
Eee software - conventional Linux
OLPC software - highly customized for non-computer-literate children
Eee development - requires conventional developer tools; system restore requires external media
OLPC development - "show source" button allows children to explore and modify most aspects of the environment with nothing more than the built-in Python editor; and versioned filesystem ensures machine can be rolled all the way back to original state with no external media support
The OLPC is very unconventional, and is much better suited to children in developing classrooms than any other machine on the market. *That* is what makes it special, not an arbitrarily low price point.
Certainly wouldn't be the first time, but this just doesn't smell right.
Precinct captain is an elected post, at least where I live. (We tossed ours out a few years back, for giving last names ending in A-F to one short line, and G-Z to one excruciatingly long one. Needless to say, the G-Z folks carried the next precinct captain election in a landslide, and threw the bum out!)
Predominantly black precincts tend to vote Democratic rather than Republican.
So are you asserting that the Democratic party is rigging elections to help Republicans? Or am I missing something here?
The secret ballot requirement is one really good reason. Distrust of banks would be another. Laws against poll taxes would be a third. But it's certainly a creative idea, so don't stop brainstorming. :-)
A lawsuit in your direction is certainly a possibility as well.
Bingo.
A scenario such as: You implement copy protection to prevent "theft of intellectual property". Your copy protection scheme malfunctions, and exposes private / proprietary data. Lawyers jump your hide based on various state anti-spyware statutes. Lawyers profit, you don't.
Like this, for example: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051121-5605.html.
Caveat: I'm speaking of corporations in the USA here - I know nothing of how corporations in other countries approach software licensing, but I deal with it on a daily basis where I work. If I sound like I believe corporations are mostly about lawsuit avoidance when selecting software, then I'm coming through clearly. :-)
If you choose to go the fee-per-user route, corporate customers will expect the ability to easily manage their licenses conveniently from one or more central servers. The value you are adding to them is that they can easily prove that their copies are licensed by running a simple report, and that report is an affirmative defense against any claims of illegitimate use. It also gives management confidence that their employees are not making copies without their knowledge and exposing them to legal risk.
The best approach if you choose this route is to license an existing license manager - ask your primary customers which ones they use, and go with the most popular in your business sector. Of course, the license fee will come out of your profits, but that's the solution your customers will appreciate.
Alternately, you can offer a reasonable "site license" fee based on the number of users of your software that they believe they will have (*not* their employee total). At annual maintenance renewal time, each customer counts up how many people are actually using the software, and the renewal fee is based on that. This adds the burden to your customer of tracking installations, but also provides an affirmative defense ("we have a site license!"). Of course, you'll need to trust your customers more with this one, as a dishonest customer could "miscount" to save money. Legitimate corporations, though, would never intentionally game the system out of fear of legal repercussions.
In NO case should you pull a stupid stunt like phoning home. Where I work at least, we reject any candidate application that discloses spyware-type behavior in the license agreement (unlike home users, corporations have lawyers that read license agreements - and modify most of them). If an application phones home without disclosure, it's blacklisted at a minimum. A lawsuit in your direction is certainly a possibility as well.
The "correct" answer on /. is to open source the code and sell support services, of course. This may work quite well, too, although in some sectors corporations consider open source to be less desirable than commercial code because of the cost of verifying that you actually own the code you're licensing. Smart corporations audit the source code of open source applications before deploying them, and correct any illegitimate code inclusion (e.g., mixing code with incompatible licenses); it proves "due diligence" in the event of a lawsuit. They don't have this expense with closed source apps, because they can't - and that means they can't be accused of lack of due diligence for not examining the code. The law is just like that. :-(
The good news with the open source approach is that you're well-positioned competitively - once validated, the application can be deployed and used extensively, and then comes the "Who can we pay to support this?" opportunities. Code auditing can work in your favor here - once you're proven "clean", you'll be everywhere, diminishing the value add a competitor can offer.
Personally, I would open source the app and provide a detailed audit of all the code at the same location you host the source code; this proves the code is "clean" and safe to use, and provides optimal value from a corporate perspective. Offer custom services built around the free code, and that pays the bills (if you're good). ActiveState is one successful company that uses this approach (they wandered into the fee-per-user area with Komodo, but that's now moving toward open source as well - another indication that this may be the best approach in the long run).
Hope this helps, and good luck!
Could be. I can only vouch for the exceptionally involved and careful job that my parents (born 1919 and 1921) did in trying to raise me, as well as the parenting I saw for my friends as I was growing up. I didn't appreciate the sacrifices and tears then, but having raised 3 kids of my own, I do now. So whatever you may think, *I* still think they are the greatest!
"The Greatest Generation" did much more that just show up in the right place at the right time. It's easy to look back now and say how easy it was to make so many right decisions at such a critical time in history, but back then they struggled with overwhelming issues and yet managed to be united and purposeful - and therefore overcame.
Among other accomplishments, they:
All in all, not a bad days work IMHO.
(The "enormous debt habit" was not a product of The Greatest Generation, who were a uniformly thrifty and cash-based society except during WWII itself. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hi st.pdf (PDF file, starting pp 126) for the data - but national debt relative to GDP declined every year from 1946 (end of WWII) until 1981. The "enormous debt habit" was my generation, Bucky - show a little respect! :-/)
I don't propose TGG were perfect by any means. Discrimination against certain classes of people were not eradicated (though they certainly didn't invent the concept!), although some of the worst abuses were indeed addressed (lynchings, for example, dropped out of popular acceptance, and the accomplishments of some Blacks were finally acknowledged and recognized, if only out of embarrassment for how much had gone unrecognized in the past). And the foundations for defeat were also laid, resulting most notably in the Vietnam war (where allied soldiers were required to bomb empty jungles lest we hurt any Russian advisors - idiots!).
But compared to the moral confusion and lack of clear and unified purpose in the current generation, I think they did pretty darned good against overwhelming odds, and are worthy of the title bestowed by the popular media. YMMV, of course.
Get Safari - 25 seconds flat!