In a well written article the first paragraph IS the summary. Every communication tells you the story 3 times: The tell you what they are going to tell you, the tell you what they want to tell you, they tell you what they told you.
I don't make the rules, I just regurgitate them from my years writing for the school newspaper.
Batteries will continue to suck for a variety of reasons. Numero Uno: if you have a lot of energy packed into a small space it has a tendency to want to explode. Duece: Batteries are a chemical conversion of electricity to a chemical reaction and back. Every conversion takes energy. Trece: Even if you get away from chemical batteries, and somehow find a way to store that much potential energy safely, nature abhors a vacuum. That energy is going to leak out any which way it can.
Energy efficient, got you. But as an Electrical Engineer, and a seasoned network engineer, I've never heard the term before. And I'm pretty damn well read.
I have a friend who is a history major. He always says that History isn't history until everyone who was there has died.
I'm starting to get the sense that Science really should stick with the timeless concept. 2 years is a blink of an eye when preparing a paper on particle physics, or mathematics. 2 years is at least 8 lifetimes on the internet. By the time you write about it, it's obsolete.
I'm trying to figure out if that is an observation or a conclusion.
Especially considering that on any given week we have a report on slashdot about some large project forking. Hell we have more schisms than the Christianity.
You are mixing metaphors my friend. Conformity is not the same thing as opression. A community policed set of standards is not a police state. We are in a state of chaos and uncertainty, that chaos is starting to get in the road of our mission.
I will have you know that the hardware business conforms to a length set of interoperability standards. They are benevolently dictated by the IEEE. Those standards are what allow the chips from one company to interface, or even not fry, another. Peripherals all conform to one of a handful of standards: PCI, ISA, AGP, USB, IEEE1394 (aka Firewire.) Mobo manufacturers are given a set of specifications for each CPU and driver chip.
And yes, it is chaos. And no, x86 is not a clear winner. If you include embedded devices the venerable Motorola 68000 series, and it's derivatives, eat x86 for lunch. My Linksys access point uses a MIPS architecture chip, as does my Playstation II. By volume there are billions of those devices in circulation.
And I do find it ironic that you end an anti-conformity rant by trying to make me conform to your mindset. "Repeat after me", Bah. Any true lover of freedom would never use such words. The truth points to itself.
Linux is NOT anti-monoculture. Unlike BSD the Linux kernel has not forked off into a million competing implementations. Why? Because Linux Torvalds works like hell to keep everyone on the same path. Many wander, and discover new things, and the best of the side-tracks are knitted into the collective. So while there may be a Cox kernel and a Wolk kernel, at any given time there is a Vanilla kernel that everyone bases their work on.
Linux is about transparency. All of the inner workings talk to each other in a consistant way. When something is inconsistant it is re-written according to the best ideas of the community. There is a certain sacrifice of individuality required to work on a project of that magnetude. The sacrifice is shared by all and understood, yet it is little sacrifice at all. In exchange for a measure of conformity, you can call upon the resources of the collective to solve a problem.
Despite what you may think, out society lives by this conformity/freedom balance. When you are sick, where do you go? The Hospital. Where are your children educated? At school. When someone is committing a crime, who is called? The police. Who protects our country from invasion? The military.
All of these things would be impossible for an individual alone to do, or at least do well.
Back to my point I see less "diversity" in Linux software than I see duplication of effort. There is no earthly reason why I need to have GTK, GTK2.0, QT, and TK all installed on my machine at a given time. They all do essentially the same thing. Why do I need ESD, ARTSd, OSS, and ALSA all at the same time?
When you sit back and reflect on the insanity, the problem becomes clearer.
My plan would be to simply ditch both KDE and GNOME and have both camps come together with a neutral product that embodies the best of both. Sure it would take years to do, but since when are volunteers pressed for time?
My main complaint is a lack of scripting in both. Pick one: TCL or Python. Now, instead of writing wrapper on top of wrapper in C++, knit your higher level functions together in script. Development time drops, because now you are only developing and testing core widgets, components, and APIs. Customization increases. You can re-script the interface to suit you needs be it a kiosk, a desktop machine, or an embedded terminal.
Now, extend the plan. Develop a common communication protocol that all desktop components will use. Instead of making calls to a library, pass instructions to an ambassador object. Let the ambassador take care of the formatting and translate commands into all of the implementation specific details. Mimic network protocols so that we are only passing information. In this way we don't care what language (or even CPU architecture) is on the other side of the transaction.
At present you have KDE and GNOME which set about to rule the entire desktop in 2 entirely different ways. Each of them employs an application toolbox that is so handy and candylike that developers are hooked on one or the other. We have several different sound packages, each mutually exclusive. Printing is a pick and choose proposition. Scripting is a pain because it seems that everyone has a favorite language the requires its own interpreter.
If we put aside our holy wars and worked towards one system we would be better off.
We need a Desktop Czar in the same vein as Linus is to the Kernel. Someone to assemble the application side of OS. One shell. One scripting language (preferably the same interpreter AS the shell). One compile and build system. One package management system. One file layout. One printing system. Some one needs to stick their neck out and say "This is how it is will be done."
I would argue that if you are trying to replicate the functions of a conventional windows workstation under Linux, yes you are crazy. I have a Gentoo workstation at home as my primary box largely because I have some exotic older hardware that XP does a crappy job of supporting. That and I have a really understanding wife who is a computer teacher.
That said, the Windows "fat workstation" approach is crazy. Corporate networks would be better served by going to a thin-client architecture. In that respect [Li]|[U]nix is on an even keel with Windows Terminal Services and Citrix. Everyone gets a box that logs in, and a desktop that does everything they need and nothing they don't.
At least with Unix you already assume that the person logging in will have only a minimal interation with the bare metal.
The day the Google ceases to work for me is the day I write my own Search Engine. A collection of links to websites does not a monopoly make. Especially when the corpus of data is essentially obsolete upon generation.
I agree. By logical extension of this argument a mechanical engineering degree would be required for your driver's license, and a medical degree required to apply a band-aid. And don't get me started on toilets.
Really folks, life is about getting down to what you want to do. I love fiddling with computers in the same way some people fiddle with woodwork or knock a perfectly innocent white ball around a grassy field with holes in it.
I would much rather have folks focus on what they are genuinely interested in. If for nothing more than it allows me to do what I like to do.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't make the rules, I just regurgitate them from my years writing for the school newspaper.
Quit bitching or open-source the laws of physics.
Energy efficient, got you. But as an Electrical Engineer, and a seasoned network engineer, I've never heard the term before. And I'm pretty damn well read.
And all the folks who double clicked on me, in alphebetical order: Aarron Aardvark, Adam Acres, Audry Acres, Barnaby Acres ...
With me that makes at least 2 grumpy old crumudgeons then.
Well at least it was available until you slashdotted it you insensitive clod!
I'm starting to get the sense that Science really should stick with the timeless concept. 2 years is a blink of an eye when preparing a paper on particle physics, or mathematics. 2 years is at least 8 lifetimes on the internet. By the time you write about it, it's obsolete.
So I'm officially taping that sign to my butt. I'll call it "tao-linux". http://www.etoyoc.com/tao-linux
Especially considering that on any given week we have a report on slashdot about some large project forking. Hell we have more schisms than the Christianity.
I will have you know that the hardware business conforms to a length set of interoperability standards. They are benevolently dictated by the IEEE. Those standards are what allow the chips from one company to interface, or even not fry, another. Peripherals all conform to one of a handful of standards: PCI, ISA, AGP, USB, IEEE1394 (aka Firewire.) Mobo manufacturers are given a set of specifications for each CPU and driver chip.
And yes, it is chaos. And no, x86 is not a clear winner. If you include embedded devices the venerable Motorola 68000 series, and it's derivatives, eat x86 for lunch. My Linksys access point uses a MIPS architecture chip, as does my Playstation II. By volume there are billions of those devices in circulation.
And I do find it ironic that you end an anti-conformity rant by trying to make me conform to your mindset. "Repeat after me", Bah. Any true lover of freedom would never use such words. The truth points to itself.
Linux is NOT anti-monoculture. Unlike BSD the Linux kernel has not forked off into a million competing implementations. Why? Because Linux Torvalds works like hell to keep everyone on the same path. Many wander, and discover new things, and the best of the side-tracks are knitted into the collective. So while there may be a Cox kernel and a Wolk kernel, at any given time there is a Vanilla kernel that everyone bases their work on.
Linux is about transparency. All of the inner workings talk to each other in a consistant way. When something is inconsistant it is re-written according to the best ideas of the community. There is a certain sacrifice of individuality required to work on a project of that magnetude. The sacrifice is shared by all and understood, yet it is little sacrifice at all. In exchange for a measure of conformity, you can call upon the resources of the collective to solve a problem.
Despite what you may think, out society lives by this conformity/freedom balance. When you are sick, where do you go? The Hospital. Where are your children educated? At school. When someone is committing a crime, who is called? The police. Who protects our country from invasion? The military.
All of these things would be impossible for an individual alone to do, or at least do well.
Back to my point I see less "diversity" in Linux software than I see duplication of effort. There is no earthly reason why I need to have GTK, GTK2.0, QT, and TK all installed on my machine at a given time. They all do essentially the same thing. Why do I need ESD, ARTSd, OSS, and ALSA all at the same time?
When you sit back and reflect on the insanity, the problem becomes clearer.
Amen. Now if I could only see the website...
Track my progress at http://www.etoyoc.com/tao-linux
My plan would be to simply ditch both KDE and GNOME and have both camps come together with a neutral product that embodies the best of both. Sure it would take years to do, but since when are volunteers pressed for time?
My main complaint is a lack of scripting in both. Pick one: TCL or Python. Now, instead of writing wrapper on top of wrapper in C++, knit your higher level functions together in script. Development time drops, because now you are only developing and testing core widgets, components, and APIs. Customization increases. You can re-script the interface to suit you needs be it a kiosk, a desktop machine, or an embedded terminal.
Now, extend the plan. Develop a common communication protocol that all desktop components will use. Instead of making calls to a library, pass instructions to an ambassador object. Let the ambassador take care of the formatting and translate commands into all of the implementation specific details. Mimic network protocols so that we are only passing information. In this way we don't care what language (or even CPU architecture) is on the other side of the transaction.
If you aren't pissing someone off in this world you can't be doing anything meaningful.
At present you have KDE and GNOME which set about to rule the entire desktop in 2 entirely different ways. Each of them employs an application toolbox that is so handy and candylike that developers are hooked on one or the other. We have several different sound packages, each mutually exclusive. Printing is a pick and choose proposition. Scripting is a pain because it seems that everyone has a favorite language the requires its own interpreter.
If we put aside our holy wars and worked towards one system we would be better off.
We need a Desktop Czar in the same vein as Linus is to the Kernel. Someone to assemble the application side of OS. One shell. One scripting language (preferably the same interpreter AS the shell). One compile and build system. One package management system. One file layout. One printing system. Some one needs to stick their neck out and say "This is how it is will be done."
And if we don't do it, Bill, IBM, or Novell WILL.
That said, the Windows "fat workstation" approach is crazy. Corporate networks would be better served by going to a thin-client architecture. In that respect [Li]|[U]nix is on an even keel with Windows Terminal Services and Citrix. Everyone gets a box that logs in, and a desktop that does everything they need and nothing they don't.
At least with Unix you already assume that the person logging in will have only a minimal interation with the bare metal.
I'm at home with a newborn, and I can tell you with conviction the old Unix adage is true.
An oldie but goodie from the Userfriendly comic strip.
Testing ejection seats.
Unsolicited manuscript reviewer.
Microsoft Linux Researcher
Jamacan anti-drug campaigner.
I recommend the ghost twins from the Matrix. Nothing seems to kill them save a flame war.
I think I heard a single hand clapping.
The day the Google ceases to work for me is the day I write my own Search Engine. A collection of links to websites does not a monopoly make. Especially when the corpus of data is essentially obsolete upon generation.
Really folks, life is about getting down to what you want to do. I love fiddling with computers in the same way some people fiddle with woodwork or knock a perfectly innocent white ball around a grassy field with holes in it.
I would much rather have folks focus on what they are genuinely interested in. If for nothing more than it allows me to do what I like to do.