Even very stable releases of GLIBC can cause major problems when you upgrade wantonly. This is the one package (for RedHat users) that shouldn't be upgraded unless you really do know what you are doing. I would be *very* cautious until vendors start including it in things like RawHide.
The issue is that almost all programs on your system depend on glibc. This is about the only library about which such is true. Also the glibc people are infamous for binary (and hell, source too) incompatibility...even between minor versions. In addition it sounds like most of the gains are stability. If you end up screwing your system over...you haven't increased stability much, eh?
Actually Stanford University has had a Linux distribution (RH-based) with some simple changes to allow cooperation with AFS, Kerberos, etc since the beginning of last summer. It works nicely, except for some "turn off every possible service we can get away with" "fixes" to attempt to impose security on people. Grrr... I usually "fix" this after I install - returning my system into my own capable hands:)
The policies on Linux shifted from no official regognition or support to actually producing a (RH-based) distribution. This actually makes a lot of sense and is one of Linux's prime advantages. Its a *lot* easier for them to make their own distribution than to support the myriad others. What's also great is that they are willing to make requested changes...
a) They were able to produce a CD/download that installs *preconfigured* for Stanford. This eases support headaches enourmously with tough things like AFS.
b) This gives them more indirect control over the openness of boxes running on campus (remember - no firewall). This is important because a compromised Unix box could break security on even a routed internal network (such as my dorm).
Anyway... Not all that exciting, but if you want to check out SULinux. Actually the distribution should work very well for places like MIT and Cornell too (based on AFS/Kerberos too - and a similar strain). The specific RPMs they customized are available for seperate download.
This isn't a Beowulf cluster. If you read the article they are using their own program to split processing between computers. It sounds to me like the techniques used are not so flexible (nor scalable) as Beowulf.
Nonethless it is a good demonstration of high processing power for low prices on machines other than x86s. (Alphas are too damn expensive). What's interesting is that they recommend further reading so that one can setup a Beowulf. I wonder how a Beowulf would perform in comparison (using the same number of computers etc). I'm guessing slower, becaus ethe scalabilityf also means a possibly higher protocol overhead.
The issue is that there is not a garunteed open standard. Projects that rely on reverse-engineering proprietary protocols are not reliable. Eventually the company (which is "competing" for control of the standard) will either find a way to completely stifle such activities or will give up and release it as a standard. My experience is that the former is far more common. And the latter rarely results in truly un-biased standards (if ever - note java).
By way of example... I believe that the WINE project is the key project to Linux on the desktop (of equal import with desktop environs, I suppose). But the WINE project is only a step. I don't forsee a day when people will run Windows applications and Linux applications side by side w/o thought as to the original target platform.
Why?
The Win32 API is a moving target. Microsoft will attempt to break WINE compatibility with every new release of Windows. History shows this is true! "DOS isn't done 'til Lotus doesn't run" sound familiar? Now imagine what they could do to a competing API... Just change a couple specs - presto.
Now I'll admit that Free Software adapts, evolves, whatever with incredible speed compared with its commercial kindred - but look how long it took to "get into" things like DVDs. And the final solution was based on a simple stupidity committed by the DVD consortium. Companies will always fight to retain command of their protocols.
Compare this with a more "open" protocol like HTML or HTTP. Coorperations like Netscape and Microsoft have attempted to hijack these protocols at various points (particularly html), and have somtimes succeeded - at least partially. But other companies and Free Software were not sufficiently disadvantaged to be uncompetitive. Netscape never owned HTML. Microsoft still doesn't (though both still have enourmous power).
This drive to dominate protocols is natural behavior for a company. Why? Protocols are valuable entities. Unless an organization, without commercial interest (like the W3) is willing to be heavy handed, there's a tendency for a profit hungry entity to capture the market. Free Software often stands as a bulwark against such behavior because it brings such information into the light. I don't think I can honestly condemn companies for trying - that's capitalism. Still, unless we throw our weight as consumers, programmers, and users against such things they will inevitably occur.
This brings us back to a set of Operating Systems many of us hold dear; those beautiful free Unixen. Unix, for all its infighting (or perhaps because of), thrives on standards. Think X, HTTP, FTP, Telnet, vt100 (not a real standard, but effectively is now), etc. Things like SMB (samba) were hacked in only because a company lost control of a protocol. Don't expect Microsoft to make another mistake like that. *nix will almost always benefit from a truly open protocol.
Often the best protocols come when a company subjects immediate gain, and chooses a long term view. In spite of their onerous community license, Sun (for example) has done this in numerous instances. SGI hopefully will with the donation of a journaled filesystem. IBM has by simply porting numerous products to Linux w/o much hope for immediate profits (Voice Dictation API anyone?).
Will some benificant company do the same for streaming media?
Unlikely. The problem is that not many companies have expertise in this area. And those that do are either engaged in a fight to survive (Real), blind to the needs of a large market segment (Apple), or hostile to *nix (Microsoft).
At the moment I would say that Apple is the strongest contender. They've released much of the source to their back-end server. Now they need to complete the loop and release a client. Apple could stand to lose the control and hence profit in the short term (very broad assets / liquid assets) in return for a strong hand in a far larger pot. But they've made the wrong choice repeatedly. I wouldn't be betting on Apple with regards to open protocols (but I'll keep hoping!).
So what does this leave? I honestly don't know. I have great confidence in the Free Software community, that we will overcome hurdles before they become insurmountable. We have - again and again.
But it is less painful when we are supporting a standard!
What forces came together to create MPEG? Could they be unleased again? How many Open Source programmers have the skills or knowledge to take a stab at video codecs?
Open Protocols happen because people make them happen.
While handwriting recognition often gets a lot of gee whiz value, I think I'd find truly resilient voice dictation to be more useful. The reason is that the technology applies to more situations. When one considers how much one communicates verbally (well, those of us that haven't locked ourselves into our cellars with our beloved machines), compared to how much people handwrite - the advantages are clear.
Aditionally:
1) A *noise resistant* voice dictation technology would apply to/almost/ every situation where one would wish to write. While the two would certainely be complementary - I think voice stands best alone. For instance, PDAs could be made very effectively using only voice dictation. The reason this hasn't been done is prohibitive hardware costs to wield such processing power in a restricted space / weight / power. This *will* be overcome, though perhaps gradually.
2) It is readily apparent that in the desktop situation (ie non-portable) a voice technology is FAR *FAR* faster than a handwriting system. As voice improves it will/exceed/ most people's typing speeds - handwriting can NEVER do this. Therefore I would say that many forms of typing will be outdated (though for many applications the additional precision is desirable). I cannot see this happening with handwriting.
So from my standpoint it seems that Voice Dictation addresses a true "holy grail" of computing accessibility and ease, whereas handwriting recognition fufills a few important niche markets. This would be a tough choice to make except that voice recognition also performs suitably well in 90% of the aforementioned niches.
As much as I have enjoyed handwriting recognition (I'm a happy newton owner), I would trade it in a second for a really slick and accurate voice interface.
This is an interesting issue because it draws numerous issues of technology, government, and privacy together. The descision touches on governmental rights and restrictions with regard to its citizens, privacy issues, security, permissible protection, etc.
In many ways technology is only bringing to light how invasive our governments have been in the past. It seems conceded by both sides of the issue (its hard to tell which argument it supports) that this merely extends previously held powers to "modern technology". Maybe technology is merely raising public awereness of just how invasive our governments have or could have been (legally)...
By way of example, in Australia, the Philippines, and I'm sure other nations, the governemnt is allowed to "root through" private mail upon mere suspicion of criminal behavior. But because this mail was *centrally controlled* it was unclear when this occurred. I'm sure many other people have gotten packages and messages that have been opened by "somebody".
> The new powers are contained in a bill passed by > Australia's parliament late last month (the > Australian Security Intelligence Organization > Legislation Amendment 1999).
This raises the issue of technologist awareness. I'm not really sure that *any* civilian groups would really be driving this bill. In fact this sounds like something governments like to sneak quietly through w/o raising fuss. Why? It raises government power, and sadly political focus (at least in the US) is largely centered around the wielding of power.
** ITS HARDER TO DEAL WITH THESE THINGS ONCE THEY ARE PASSED **
Of course another approach to combatting this is to fight back. Internet technology has been kind enough to oblige knowledegable users with "close to professional" (or as good) security tools. Use PGP even when you don't *really* need it. It just gets more encrypted mail out there, which certainely complicates the job of a centralized monitoring system.
-nullity-
"Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is the best defence"
This is an interesting issue because it draws numerous issues of technology, government, and privacy together. The descision touches on governmental rights and restrictions with regard to its citizens, privacy issues, security, permissible protection, etc. In many ways technology is only bringing to light how invasive our governments have been in the past. It seems conceded by both sides of the issue (its hard to tell which argument it supports) that this merely extends previously held powers to "modern technology". Maybe technology is merely raising public awereness of just how invasive our governments have or could have been (legally)... By way of example, in Australia, the Philippines, and I'm sure other nations, the governemnt is allowed to "root through" private mail upon mere suspicion of criminal behavior. But because this mail was *centrally controlled* it was unclear when this occurred. I'm sure many other people have gotten packages and messages that have been opened by "somebody". > The new powers are contained in a bill passed by > Australia's parliament late last month (the > Australian Security Intelligence Organization > Legislation Amendment 1999). This raises the issue of technologist awareness. I'm not really sure that *any* civilian groups would really be driving this bill. In fact this sounds like something governments like to sneak quietly through w/o raising fuss. Why? It raises government power, and sadly political focus (at least in the US) is largely centered around the wielding of power. ** ITS HARDER TO DEAL WITH THESE THINGS ONCE THEY ARE PASSED ** Of course another approach to combatting this is to fight back. Internet technology has been kind enough to oblige knowledegable users with "close to professional" (or as good) security tools. Use PGP even when you don't *really* need it. It just gets more encrypted mail out there, which certainely complicates the job of a centralized monitoring system. -nullity- "Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is the best defence"
This is interesting because it repesents a national focus on an Open Source project besides Linux. Granted Samba is one of the major "others" (esp. in terms of publicity), but I think this is a positive sign for the media - at least in Australia.
They have stopped publishing the hype and are starting to delve into Linux - what really makes this stuff work and what does it mean?
While the Australian and US press are not closely interelated, hopefully this will be a well watched time spot. If it is significantly viewed it could enourage the media in other countries to adopt a more informative stance on Open Source. Remember: we aren't really looking for hype; this is about looking for the best informed solutions to common problems.
Although many of us may be somewhat underwhelmed by the utility of Iris Performer (don't get me wrong, its a nice application - it just isn't at all useful for my purposes!), we have to recognize this as an awesome sign because of the trends it fortells. This is further evidence that SGI is truly committed to the Linux platform. This gives me greater hope that things like the SGI Journalled FS, etc will make it into Linux soon.
This really has much significance that trancends the simple release of a niche application.
Alpha means FAST, STABLE, and *HOT*. (oops, wrong Alpha)
The definition of Alpha varies largely based on the problems facing the project. Some projects are very stable (even in development), but have large architectural holes. They may do an Alpha release that has some pieces missing and request ideas for additions.
Mozilla is quite the opposite. While some functionality has yet to be implemented, my opinion is that the focus has been too much on features and too little on stability. You *won't* get all the bugs out of a program if you wait until the last minute to pack them out. That said, I think Mozilla really needs to do a two milestone FEATURE FREEZE, work out hoardes of bugs as quickly as possible, and then release an Alpha version. Sure, there'll be some elements missing - fix those while people are poking at the first Alpha. Then release a second Alpha integrating the stability fixes and the final features.
Finally use the data out of that to move on to beta...
I think the Mozilla project has a long arduous bug war ahead of them that has been sub-consciensly avoided for far too long (though M12 is a *step* in the right direction - esp for Windows and Mac).
LOSE THE NON-GTK MENUS ALREADY - THEY SLOW THE UNIX VERSION DOWN AND MAKE IT CRASH!
I disagree with the idea that magazines have *not* adapted. On the one hand the article bitches that print media is too slow a medium, on the other that computer magazines have begun to fade away - being replaced by the likes of CNet and ZDNet. *DING* Give the woman a cookie. a) I think this article addresses issues raised concerning influence on print media by sponsors. Notice that she plugs CNet and gives slight notice to ZDNet? They ain't the only ones... I see no reason why CNet is any different from PC Computing in terms of sponsor pressure. b) It seems that even CNet is behind the times - because in my opinion CNet is a electronic form of a magazine. ZDNet clearly is - this is the new PC Magazine! They have changed (a little). The real future may be in audience targeted "e-zines" such as Slashdot. Maybe not, but certainly not the "I wish i was in print but i'm on the web" attitude of CNet. Use the media or lose the customers. I see that magazines have been shifting to the web. And clearly as they shift their core readers there they make up new markets for the old paper copy. PC Computing chooses to target suits not yet comfortable with getting news online. Good for them! Maybe they can knock some sense in... (then again, maybe not).
This is just another example of the media playing off the mass consumer's fears. Our society has absorbed an incredible quantity of technology in a relatively short period (40 years). Obviously there is fear in the unknown, and how much more so when the "unknown" lives in your own home?
Y2K has and will become "popular" because it embodies a threat many consumers already feel. Yes, the potential demons live in their own home - on their kitchentops as microwaves, and in the sockets on the walls. Media constantly capitalizes on people's innate fears - so it is natural that a TV series would be produced around this theme. Actually I'm rather surprised there hasn't been *more*.
On the flipside the media portrayal is positive because although it shows an improbable (maybe) Y2K situation, this series seems to show human ingenuity triumphing over technology. This is what people really want to believe (and, is largely true - though human ingenuity with new modern techniques). So in a way I think this helps to aleviate panic, not perpetuate it. Yes, it may be innacurate, but I say anything is good that makes people feel more comfortable with technology:)
Slashdot Mirror
Even very stable releases of GLIBC can cause major problems when you upgrade wantonly. This is the one package (for RedHat users) that shouldn't be upgraded unless you really do know what you are doing. I would be *very* cautious until vendors start including it in things like RawHide.
:-)
The issue is that almost all programs on your system depend on glibc. This is about the only library about which such is true. Also the glibc people are infamous for binary (and hell, source too) incompatibility...even between minor versions. In addition it sounds like most of the gains are stability. If you end up screwing your system over...you haven't increased stability much, eh?
Just watch out
-nullity-
I am nothing.
The policies on Linux shifted from no official regognition or support to actually producing a (RH-based) distribution. This actually makes a lot of sense and is one of Linux's prime advantages. Its a *lot* easier for them to make their own distribution than to support the myriad others. What's also great is that they are willing to make requested changes...
a) They were able to produce a CD/download that installs *preconfigured* for Stanford. This eases support headaches enourmously with tough things like AFS.
b) This gives them more indirect control over the openness of boxes running on campus (remember - no firewall). This is important because a compromised Unix box could break security on even a routed internal network (such as my dorm).
Anyway... Not all that exciting, but if you want to check out SULinux. Actually the distribution should work very well for places like MIT and Cornell too (based on AFS/Kerberos too - and a similar strain). The specific RPMs they customized are available for seperate download.
--nullity--
I am nothing
This isn't a Beowulf cluster. If you read the article they are using their own program to split processing between computers. It sounds to me like the techniques used are not so flexible (nor scalable) as Beowulf.
Nonethless it is a good demonstration of high processing power for low prices on machines other than x86s. (Alphas are too damn expensive). What's interesting is that they recommend further reading so that one can setup a Beowulf. I wonder how a Beowulf would perform in comparison (using the same number of computers etc). I'm guessing slower, becaus ethe scalabilityf also means a possibly higher protocol overhead.
--nullity--
I am nothing.
yes... I agree ;)
...dvorak... cough!).
I was mocking one of my less than favorite PC Magazine authors (cough!
=)
--nullity--
I am nothing.
The issue is that there is not a garunteed open standard. Projects that rely on reverse-engineering proprietary protocols are not reliable. Eventually the company (which is "competing" for control of the standard) will either find a way to completely stifle such activities or will give up and release it as a standard. My experience is that the former is far more common. And the latter rarely results in truly un-biased standards (if ever - note java).
By way of example... I believe that the WINE project is the key project to Linux on the desktop (of equal import with desktop environs, I suppose). But the WINE project is only a step. I don't forsee a day when people will run Windows applications and Linux applications side by side w/o thought as to the original target platform.
Why?
The Win32 API is a moving target. Microsoft will attempt to break WINE compatibility with every new release of Windows. History shows this is true! "DOS isn't done 'til Lotus doesn't run" sound familiar? Now imagine what they could do to a competing API... Just change a couple specs - presto.
Now I'll admit that Free Software adapts, evolves, whatever with incredible speed compared with its commercial kindred - but look how long it took to "get into" things like DVDs. And the final solution was based on a simple stupidity committed by the DVD consortium. Companies will always fight to retain command of their protocols.
Compare this with a more "open" protocol like HTML or HTTP. Coorperations like Netscape and Microsoft have attempted to hijack these protocols at various points (particularly html), and have somtimes succeeded - at least partially. But other companies and Free Software were not sufficiently disadvantaged to be uncompetitive. Netscape never owned HTML. Microsoft still doesn't (though both still have enourmous power).
This drive to dominate protocols is natural behavior for a company. Why? Protocols are valuable entities. Unless an organization, without commercial interest (like the W3) is willing to be heavy handed, there's a tendency for a profit hungry entity to capture the market. Free Software often stands as a bulwark against such behavior because it brings such information into the light. I don't think I can honestly condemn companies for trying - that's capitalism. Still, unless we throw our weight as consumers, programmers, and users against such things they will inevitably occur.
This brings us back to a set of Operating Systems many of us hold dear; those beautiful free Unixen. Unix, for all its infighting (or perhaps because of), thrives on standards. Think X, HTTP, FTP, Telnet, vt100 (not a real standard, but effectively is now), etc. Things like SMB (samba) were hacked in only because a company lost control of a protocol. Don't expect Microsoft to make another mistake like that. *nix will almost always benefit from a truly open protocol.
Often the best protocols come when a company subjects immediate gain, and chooses a long term view. In spite of their onerous community license, Sun (for example) has done this in numerous instances. SGI hopefully will with the donation of a journaled filesystem. IBM has by simply porting numerous products to Linux w/o much hope for immediate profits (Voice Dictation API anyone?).
Will some benificant company do the same for streaming media?
Unlikely. The problem is that not many companies have expertise in this area. And those that do are either engaged in a fight to survive (Real), blind to the needs of a large market segment (Apple), or hostile to *nix (Microsoft).
At the moment I would say that Apple is the strongest contender. They've released much of the source to their back-end server. Now they need to complete the loop and release a client. Apple could stand to lose the control and hence profit in the short term (very broad assets / liquid assets) in return for a strong hand in a far larger pot. But they've made the wrong choice repeatedly. I wouldn't be betting on Apple with regards to open protocols (but I'll keep hoping!).
So what does this leave? I honestly don't know. I have great confidence in the Free Software community, that we will overcome hurdles before they become insurmountable. We have - again and again.
But it is less painful when we are supporting a standard!
What forces came together to create MPEG? Could they be unleased again? How many Open Source programmers have the skills or knowledge to take a stab at video codecs?
Open Protocols happen because people make them happen.
--nullity--
I am nothing.
While handwriting recognition often gets a lot of gee whiz value, I think I'd find truly resilient voice dictation to be more useful. The reason is that the technology applies to more situations. When one considers how much one communicates verbally (well, those of us that haven't locked ourselves into our cellars with our beloved machines), compared to how much people handwrite - the advantages are clear.
/almost/ every situation where one would wish to write. While the two would certainely be complementary - I think voice stands best alone. For instance, PDAs could be made very effectively using only voice dictation. The reason this hasn't been done is prohibitive hardware costs to wield such processing power in a restricted space / weight / power. This *will* be overcome, though perhaps gradually.
/exceed/ most people's typing speeds - handwriting can NEVER do this. Therefore I would say that many forms of typing will be outdated (though for many applications the additional precision is desirable). I cannot see this happening with handwriting.
Aditionally:
1) A *noise resistant* voice dictation technology would apply to
2) It is readily apparent that in the desktop situation (ie non-portable) a voice technology is FAR *FAR* faster than a handwriting system. As voice improves it will
So from my standpoint it seems that Voice Dictation addresses a true "holy grail" of computing accessibility and ease, whereas handwriting recognition fufills a few important niche markets. This would be a tough choice to make except that voice recognition also performs suitably well in 90% of the aforementioned niches.
As much as I have enjoyed handwriting recognition (I'm a happy newton owner), I would trade it in a second for a really slick and accurate voice interface.
-nullity-
This is an interesting issue because it draws numerous issues of technology, government, and privacy together. The descision touches on governmental rights and restrictions with regard to its citizens, privacy issues, security, permissible protection, etc.
In many ways technology is only bringing to light how invasive our governments have been in the past. It seems conceded by both sides of the issue (its hard to tell which argument it supports) that this merely extends previously held powers to "modern technology". Maybe technology is merely raising public awereness of just how invasive our governments have or could have been (legally)...
By way of example, in Australia, the Philippines, and I'm sure other nations, the governemnt is allowed to "root through" private mail upon mere suspicion of criminal behavior. But because this mail was *centrally controlled* it was unclear when this occurred. I'm sure many other people have gotten packages and messages that have been opened by "somebody".
> The new powers are contained in a bill passed by
> Australia's parliament late last month (the
> Australian Security Intelligence Organization
> Legislation Amendment 1999).
This raises the issue of technologist awareness. I'm not really sure that *any* civilian groups would really be driving this bill. In fact this sounds like something governments like to sneak quietly through w/o raising fuss. Why? It raises government power, and sadly political focus (at least in the US) is largely centered around the wielding of power.
** ITS HARDER TO DEAL WITH THESE THINGS ONCE THEY ARE PASSED **
Of course another approach to combatting this is to fight back. Internet technology has been kind enough to oblige knowledegable users with "close to professional" (or as good) security tools. Use PGP even when you don't *really* need it. It just gets more encrypted mail out there, which certainely complicates the job of a centralized monitoring system.
-nullity-
"Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is the best defence"
This is an interesting issue because it draws numerous issues of technology, government, and privacy together. The descision touches on governmental rights and restrictions with regard to its citizens, privacy issues, security, permissible protection, etc. In many ways technology is only bringing to light how invasive our governments have been in the past. It seems conceded by both sides of the issue (its hard to tell which argument it supports) that this merely extends previously held powers to "modern technology". Maybe technology is merely raising public awereness of just how invasive our governments have or could have been (legally)... By way of example, in Australia, the Philippines, and I'm sure other nations, the governemnt is allowed to "root through" private mail upon mere suspicion of criminal behavior. But because this mail was *centrally controlled* it was unclear when this occurred. I'm sure many other people have gotten packages and messages that have been opened by "somebody". > The new powers are contained in a bill passed by > Australia's parliament late last month (the > Australian Security Intelligence Organization > Legislation Amendment 1999). This raises the issue of technologist awareness. I'm not really sure that *any* civilian groups would really be driving this bill. In fact this sounds like something governments like to sneak quietly through w/o raising fuss. Why? It raises government power, and sadly political focus (at least in the US) is largely centered around the wielding of power. ** ITS HARDER TO DEAL WITH THESE THINGS ONCE THEY ARE PASSED ** Of course another approach to combatting this is to fight back. Internet technology has been kind enough to oblige knowledegable users with "close to professional" (or as good) security tools. Use PGP even when you don't *really* need it. It just gets more encrypted mail out there, which certainely complicates the job of a centralized monitoring system. -nullity- "Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is the best defence"
This is interesting because it repesents a national focus on an Open Source project besides Linux. Granted Samba is one of the major "others" (esp. in terms of publicity), but I think this is a positive sign for the media - at least in Australia.
:)
They have stopped publishing the hype and are starting to delve into Linux - what really makes this stuff work and what does it mean?
While the Australian and US press are not closely interelated, hopefully this will be a well watched time spot. If it is significantly viewed it could enourage the media in other countries to adopt a more informative stance on Open Source. Remember: we aren't really looking for hype; this is about looking for the best informed solutions to common problems.
Kudos to the 7:30 report
Although many of us may be somewhat underwhelmed by the utility of Iris Performer (don't get me wrong, its a nice application - it just isn't at all useful for my purposes!), we have to recognize this as an awesome sign because of the trends it fortells. This is further evidence that SGI is truly committed to the Linux platform. This gives me greater hope that things like the SGI Journalled FS, etc will make it into Linux soon.
This really has much significance that trancends the simple release of a niche application.
-nullity-
Alpha means FAST, STABLE, and *HOT*. (oops, wrong Alpha)
The definition of Alpha varies largely based on the problems facing the project. Some projects are very stable (even in development), but have large architectural holes. They may do an Alpha release that has some pieces missing and request ideas for additions.
Mozilla is quite the opposite. While some functionality has yet to be implemented, my opinion is that the focus has been too much on features and too little on stability. You *won't* get all the bugs out of a program if you wait until the last minute to pack them out. That said, I think Mozilla really needs to do a two milestone FEATURE FREEZE, work out hoardes of bugs as quickly as possible, and then release an Alpha version. Sure, there'll be some elements missing - fix those while people are poking at the first Alpha. Then release a second Alpha integrating the stability fixes and the final features.
Finally use the data out of that to move on to beta...
I think the Mozilla project has a long arduous bug war ahead of them that has been sub-consciensly avoided for far too long (though M12 is a *step* in the right direction - esp for Windows and Mac).
LOSE THE NON-GTK MENUS ALREADY - THEY SLOW THE UNIX VERSION DOWN AND MAKE IT CRASH!
-nullity-
I disagree with the idea that magazines have *not* adapted. On the one hand the article bitches that print media is too slow a medium, on the other that computer magazines have begun to fade away - being replaced by the likes of CNet and ZDNet. *DING* Give the woman a cookie. a) I think this article addresses issues raised concerning influence on print media by sponsors. Notice that she plugs CNet and gives slight notice to ZDNet? They ain't the only ones... I see no reason why CNet is any different from PC Computing in terms of sponsor pressure. b) It seems that even CNet is behind the times - because in my opinion CNet is a electronic form of a magazine. ZDNet clearly is - this is the new PC Magazine! They have changed (a little). The real future may be in audience targeted "e-zines" such as Slashdot. Maybe not, but certainly not the "I wish i was in print but i'm on the web" attitude of CNet. Use the media or lose the customers. I see that magazines have been shifting to the web. And clearly as they shift their core readers there they make up new markets for the old paper copy. PC Computing chooses to target suits not yet comfortable with getting news online. Good for them! Maybe they can knock some sense in... (then again, maybe not).
This is just another example of the media playing off the mass consumer's fears. Our society has absorbed an incredible quantity of technology in a relatively short period (40 years). Obviously there is fear in the unknown, and how much more so when the "unknown" lives in your own home?
:)
Y2K has and will become "popular" because it embodies a threat many consumers already feel. Yes, the potential demons live in their own home - on their kitchentops as microwaves, and in the sockets on the walls. Media constantly capitalizes on people's innate fears - so it is natural that a TV series would be produced around this theme. Actually I'm rather surprised there hasn't been *more*.
On the flipside the media portrayal is positive because although it shows an improbable (maybe) Y2K situation, this series seems to show human ingenuity triumphing over technology. This is what people really want to believe (and, is largely true - though human ingenuity with new modern techniques). So in a way I think this helps to aleviate panic, not perpetuate it. Yes, it may be innacurate, but I say anything is good that makes people feel more comfortable with technology
-Seth