what's the date on the screenplay? that's your date to watch, not the movie release.
Re:What happens when I click on an earthquake?
on
Is This The Big One?
·
· Score: 1
Of course if that's your perspective, every one could be "the big one" and you might as well go find somewhere else to live.
Re:What happens when I click on an earthquake?
on
Is This The Big One?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Absolutely. Look at the last week...there were actually more, bigger quakes, closer to civilization (the two noted above were over 40 miles from listed cities) a few days ago, and they haven't fallen into the ocean. And the overall trend doesn't appear to be obviously greater than the background levels.
I think a few cases of tapes mysteriously disappearing would lead to quite a bit of public hue and cry. Personally, I think an impartial set of data is at least as reasonable as what we have now, with people being able to be pressured into saying whatever suits the lawyers with the biggest sticks.
Privacy invasions like this cut both ways though. If the entire area is monitored 24x7, and such recordings are admissable in court, they can be used to demonstrate police brutality/misbehavior too. It all depends on the actual rules in place, and if I live in such a place and saw the surveillance as inevitable, I'd at least make sure that it was going to go both ways.
It's not the version that is the default. Sorry if backward compatability is anathema to you, but that's the whole reason the old tar still exists anywhere, and GNU tar shouldn't be any more immune to "embrace and extend in non-compatable ways" criticism than anything from Billy G.
Who cares that it's fully pre-emptive or a fine-grained network stack, provided it does the job?
But if the job includes particular performance metrics, which are more consistent with a particular implementation, those things do matter. And a committment from a vendor to a "style" of implementation (like Solaris' pre-emptable kernel) helps keep customers satisfied that major changes aren't going to radically change how things behave (in the optimal cases anyway, regressions do happen to everyone sometimes).
Linux "street cred" doesn't improve your revenues, nor your standing on Wall Street. It should be pretty clear from the public statements of management that Sun does not want to be "a Linux company". Personally I think that's a good thing--everyone derides Microsoft for promoting a monoculture, but here they are all advocating Linux uber alles for everything. Solaris for what it's good at, Linux for what it's good at, MacOS for what it's good at, and (gasp) windows for what it's good at (games and viruses!:-) all seem to be reasonable things to have around. [tongue-in-cheek]Not sure that I see any reason for HP/UX or AIX though...[/tongue-in-cheek]
Someone in the thread above me mentioned licensing as a hold up, so I referred back to it. Bad on me for still not having all my brains together.
Personally, as I say, I think the hard thing is going to be finding some kind of common way to do drivers. Maybe a DDI compliant plugin that can "interpret" or virtualize the drivers? I don't know. I'm not a kernel hacker of any note, just someone who's had a bit more training than may be good for me....
That's what I get for trying to post to slashdot after busting my ass remodelling the master bedroom for a week. Let's try that again, shall we?
Of course, the problem is, since Linux drivers don't enforce the same kind of rigid standards that Solaris does, they might decrease the stability of the platform. Again, some might say Linux is stable enough, and I'm inclined to agree, but Solaris is designed with a higher standard in mind. You can have your own opinion about whether that's worth anything, but it is a fact that has some bearing on whether or not to adopt Linux drivers if some cooperative licensing can be worked out.
One could argue that drivers that support commodity x86 hardware that has traditionally been a problem for Solaris' x86 offering might be a candidate. Of course, the problem is, since Linux drivers don't enforce the same kind of rigid standards (good/bad, take it how you will, but Solaris drivers have to be written to the DDI to even work most of the time; Linux drivers are SUPPOSED to be written to a standard, but many of them work just fine no matter how much they doink with kernel structures they shouldn't, at least for the kernel rev they're written to).
I bought a cheap ($25 or less) belkin converter so I could hook my laptop into my KVM (ps/2 unit). The *keyboard* worked fine. The mouse (a logitech marble scroll) didn't work at all. I also tried this with a different (logitech) mouse and a different system (actually a sunray) and it didn't work any better there. I suspect, though I'm not sure, that the logitech mice do something different that prevents them from working with this device.
"didn't work at all" == the only motion I'd get, if any, was up and down, and only when I was scrolling the trackball side to side.
Hence my comments about 90%. Speakeasy is the only "major" ISP I know of with such a policy, and I know that my ISP (Primus) and the other competition in the area (SBC is the gorilla) do not. Bully for you going with Speakeasy, but most people are not going to have them as their ISP.
Yah, making an offering for some people who want to use Solaris x86 (remember when Sun tried to kill it and the users screamed and yelled?) instead of Linux is "pushing". Right.
Maybe you should go take your prejudices elsewhere. Oh wait, this is slashdot, I forgot. Land of "if it ain't a Linux I approve of, it's shite."
Almost nobody gives a damn about document version control outside of particular corporate backoffices.
Everybody who works on Word files together...
And "everybody who works on word files together" is also "almost nobody" when compared to the overall user base of Word. As with the other two posters who follow you up here, I know no one who uses any version control on.doc (or.sxi for that matter) any more complex than changing the filename to reflect a version number.
And if all my relatives have no more money than I do to spring for the expensive software that makes Word 10 files, what do you think they're going to create files with? Wordpad. Which is compatable with my...wordpad.
On the other hand, if one of my relatives has gone to the trouble of pirating a real copy of Word/Office from work, chances are really good they're going to share it with anyone who has problems opening the files they've created. Net cost: $0.
So again: in the real world, no home user gives a damn about how expensive Office 2004 is for one reason or another.
Nothing like a zealot to focus on the 10% of the problems and claim they're the whole story.
Almost nobody gives a damn about document version control outside of particular corporate backoffices. Same goes for programmatic manipulation. As for requiring hugely expensive software to work on, last time I checked, I could do everything I wanted as a home user with.doc files with the INCLUDED "wordpad" software on Windows (pick your version). The only issue here that is really common and exposed to the public at large regularly is version incompatabilities, and even that is only a problem occasionally.
The grandparent post is correct..DOC as a format, regardless of its failings, works in about 80-90% of all cases that most people need it to, it's ubiquitous, and so it's not going away. Regardless of whether StarOffice or any other clone has a superior format, until they're ubiquitous, they have even WORSE interoperability stories than.DOC, so they can't solve the problems that matter to normal users anyway.
I think the point is similar to yours, but different. It's not about LOOKS. It's about what the client wants to ACCOMPLISH. What is the TASK that the website is intended to do?
Your design may be prettier, more effective, etc. but if the end result achieved is only slightly different than the competition, and you took 4 times as long to get there, it should be clear which site the client is going to prefer.
You need to step back from your work long enough to evaluate honestly whether your interface is actually more compelling to the target audience, and whether the interface is even a key decision maker for the target audience. For example, I don't choose what hardware to buy for my PC based on the quality of the vendor's websites. Do I appreciate a vendor who has an intuitive and well organized website? Absolutely. But that's not going to make me spend more money for one product over another. I'm sure that's the perspective of your client, and it is completely valid.
Wasn't it Cringely who, a few months back, was pointing out that commoditized hardware sold software and vice versa? Since IBM is largely a hardware/services vendor, why would it be any surprise that they would consider it to their benefit to commoditize the OS via [Ff]ree Linux?
Slashdot Mirror
what's the date on the screenplay? that's your date to watch, not the movie release.
Of course if that's your perspective, every one could be "the big one" and you might as well go find somewhere else to live.
Absolutely. Look at the last week...there were actually more, bigger quakes, closer to civilization (the two noted above were over 40 miles from listed cities) a few days ago, and they haven't fallen into the ocean. And the overall trend doesn't appear to be obviously greater than the background levels.
WhoTF uses Nautilus anyway? It sucks in 2D in the old metaphor, it's gonna suck in the new metaphor too.
I think a few cases of tapes mysteriously disappearing would lead to quite a bit of public hue and cry. Personally, I think an impartial set of data is at least as reasonable as what we have now, with people being able to be pressured into saying whatever suits the lawyers with the biggest sticks.
Privacy invasions like this cut both ways though. If the entire area is monitored 24x7, and such recordings are admissable in court, they can be used to demonstrate police brutality/misbehavior too. It all depends on the actual rules in place, and if I live in such a place and saw the surveillance as inevitable, I'd at least make sure that it was going to go both ways.
It's not the version that is the default. Sorry if backward compatability is anathema to you, but that's the whole reason the old tar still exists anywhere, and GNU tar shouldn't be any more immune to "embrace and extend in non-compatable ways" criticism than anything from Billy G.
But if the job includes particular performance metrics, which are more consistent with a particular implementation, those things do matter. And a committment from a vendor to a "style" of implementation (like Solaris' pre-emptable kernel) helps keep customers satisfied that major changes aren't going to radically change how things behave (in the optimal cases anyway, regressions do happen to everyone sometimes).
So you leave gnu tar out of this list then? (default output of gnu tar does not interoperate with other versions of tar).
Linux "street cred" doesn't improve your revenues, nor your standing on Wall Street. It should be pretty clear from the public statements of management that Sun does not want to be "a Linux company". Personally I think that's a good thing--everyone derides Microsoft for promoting a monoculture, but here they are all advocating Linux uber alles for everything. Solaris for what it's good at, Linux for what it's good at, MacOS for what it's good at, and (gasp) windows for what it's good at (games and viruses! :-) all seem to be reasonable things to have around. [tongue-in-cheek]Not sure that I see any reason for HP/UX or AIX though...[/tongue-in-cheek]
Personally, as I say, I think the hard thing is going to be finding some kind of common way to do drivers. Maybe a DDI compliant plugin that can "interpret" or virtualize the drivers? I don't know. I'm not a kernel hacker of any note, just someone who's had a bit more training than may be good for me....
Of course, the problem is, since Linux drivers don't enforce the same kind of rigid standards that Solaris does, they might decrease the stability of the platform. Again, some might say Linux is stable enough, and I'm inclined to agree, but Solaris is designed with a higher standard in mind. You can have your own opinion about whether that's worth anything, but it is a fact that has some bearing on whether or not to adopt Linux drivers if some cooperative licensing can be worked out.
One could argue that drivers that support commodity x86 hardware that has traditionally been a problem for Solaris' x86 offering might be a candidate. Of course, the problem is, since Linux drivers don't enforce the same kind of rigid standards (good/bad, take it how you will, but Solaris drivers have to be written to the DDI to even work most of the time; Linux drivers are SUPPOSED to be written to a standard, but many of them work just fine no matter how much they doink with kernel structures they shouldn't, at least for the kernel rev they're written to).
"didn't work at all" == the only motion I'd get, if any, was up and down, and only when I was scrolling the trackball side to side.
Hence my comments about 90%. Speakeasy is the only "major" ISP I know of with such a policy, and I know that my ISP (Primus) and the other competition in the area (SBC is the gorilla) do not. Bully for you going with Speakeasy, but most people are not going to have them as their ISP.
If you buy his "you can resell your DSL bandwidth" argument which in 90% of cases is not true.
Yah, making an offering for some people who want to use Solaris x86 (remember when Sun tried to kill it and the users screamed and yelled?) instead of Linux is "pushing". Right.
Maybe you should go take your prejudices elsewhere. Oh wait, this is slashdot, I forgot. Land of "if it ain't a Linux I approve of, it's shite."
Everybody who works on Word files together...
And "everybody who works on word files together" is also "almost nobody" when compared to the overall user base of Word. As with the other two posters who follow you up here, I know no one who uses any version control on .doc (or .sxi for that matter) any more complex than changing the filename to reflect a version number.
On the other hand, if one of my relatives has gone to the trouble of pirating a real copy of Word/Office from work, chances are really good they're going to share it with anyone who has problems opening the files they've created. Net cost: $0.
So again: in the real world, no home user gives a damn about how expensive Office 2004 is for one reason or another.
Almost nobody gives a damn about document version control outside of particular corporate backoffices. Same goes for programmatic manipulation. As for requiring hugely expensive software to work on, last time I checked, I could do everything I wanted as a home user with .doc files with the INCLUDED "wordpad" software on Windows (pick your version). The only issue here that is really common and exposed to the public at large regularly is version incompatabilities, and even that is only a problem occasionally.
The grandparent post is correct. .DOC as a format, regardless of its failings, works in about 80-90% of all cases that most people need it to, it's ubiquitous, and so it's not going away. Regardless of whether StarOffice or any other clone has a superior format, until they're ubiquitous, they have even WORSE interoperability stories than .DOC, so they can't solve the problems that matter to normal users anyway.
That was supposed to say:
(Smells like over-engineered)
As does the original questioner's website.
As does the original questioner's website.
Your design may be prettier, more effective, etc. but if the end result achieved is only slightly different than the competition, and you took 4 times as long to get there, it should be clear which site the client is going to prefer.
You need to step back from your work long enough to evaluate honestly whether your interface is actually more compelling to the target audience, and whether the interface is even a key decision maker for the target audience. For example, I don't choose what hardware to buy for my PC based on the quality of the vendor's websites. Do I appreciate a vendor who has an intuitive and well organized website? Absolutely. But that's not going to make me spend more money for one product over another. I'm sure that's the perspective of your client, and it is completely valid.
They sell services too, which makes you think that probably has some real money in it.
Wasn't it Cringely who, a few months back, was pointing out that commoditized hardware sold software and vice versa? Since IBM is largely a hardware/services vendor, why would it be any surprise that they would consider it to their benefit to commoditize the OS via [Ff]ree Linux?