Apple invented Plug & Play and NO ONE has yet to match it.
Granted, I don't have as much Mac experience as you do, but my experiences with Mac Plug & Play have all been nightmares. When a closed hardware system doesn't even recognize the modem it shipped with, it's seriously pathetic. I've never had Plug & Play problems on PCs that came anywhere close to the ones I've had with Macs.
And as for the school thing, the high school I went to is only a little bigger than yours, and I'm aware of 1 Mac, which is in the graphic arts department.
They'll have a longer product cycle (Macs last forever and retain their value much better than cobbled-together PCs), which means the district won't have to upgrade their hardware nearly as often.
The hardware doesn't last any longer than PC hardware, and Apple has demonstrated more than once that it is willing to completely abandon users with hardware only a couple of years old. Not even Microsoft does that. Since schools don't sell their old hardware, retained value is irrelevant.
They'll upgrade their software for much less than with a Windows solution
Because Apple completely abandons it's platforms every few years, and thus it will be impossible for them to upgrade their software.
and they won't be compelled to upgrade.
Unless, of course, they need to for some reason, in which case they'll have to buy a whole new system instead of just buying new software.
Macs are already entrenched in education
This hasn't been true for over a decade now. There are a few die-hards still using Macs in education, and they're generally only used for teaching Photoshop.
they're ease of use is legendary.
I've always found Macs more difficult to use, particularly from an administration perspective. Besides, kids will learn whatever you put in front of them.
Quartz is, without a doubt, the best user interface ever.
I'm sure that there is no doubt in the Mac community, but everyone I know prefers KDE.
There is a plethora of commercial applications for Mac OS. These are generally easier to use and are better-supported than Free software applications.
This is true for the moment, but it is very quickly becoming untrue. However, ease of use is a straw man in education. Again, kids will learn whatever you put in front of them.
They're inexpensive. You can already get an iMac for $799, and the education discounts that Apple gives are significant.
I can personally buy a PC that would serve the same purpose for under $600, and most PC OEMs offer fund-matching grants to schools, effectively halving the price. That price includes Windows and MS Office.
Alternatively, I can pick up some dandy X terminals for $50 each at the local Salvation Army, or I could build 5 of them using the spare parts I have in my closet.
While Linux is an excellent OS for those who love choice, freedom and hacking (in the "programming" context), it isn't really ready for widespread use on the desktops of non-technical users.
Perhaps you should try a modern distro, maybe one that includes a graphical environment like KDE. I'll agree that it can be difficult to install new software in Linux, but that's the absolute last thing you want student users doing anyway. In my experience, student installed software accounts for over 80% of administrative costs and headaches in a school network environment.
Linus wouldn't do that, nor should he. He's much to laid back and has far less of a stake in the GPL than RMS. RMS would be much more amusing in that role, anyway. Once he got hold of them he'd never let go, and he'd make a ton of noise about it, too.
Mac dominance in schools? Not in the last decade. MS has been by far dominant in schools in that period of time. This has been mostly due to donations from OEMs like Gateway, but there has also been influence from the business world, which tends to see school as job training.
Basically, Macs have been relegated to art departments since the early 90s. Even my uncle, a high school teacher and die-hard Mac fan, eventually had to come over to the dark side.
Besides, even when Macs weredominant in schools, that wasn't what people had in their homes. Apple's logic was flawed. It was the parents who were shelling out the cash for these systems, and they had the choice between the tech their 12 year old said was cool, or the tech they used every day at work. The only time the Mac won that arguement was when it was the tech the parent used at work, and graphic artists and teachers have never been a large subset of the population.
It is quite possible to speak out against Communism without supporting McCarthy and Orwell is a prime example of that situation.
Which is exactly what the post said. Tthe assumption you claim was in fact never made, and therefore I suggest that you read it again, as you have obviously misunderstood it.
Read the post again. Many McCarthians point to Orwell's works to support their denouncement of socialism in all it's forms, and the parent merely pointed out that, since Orwell himself was a socialist, perhaps the McCarthians should rethink that tactic.
The idea that Orwell was McCarthian is a complete misreading of the parent post.
It's important to point out that Socialism and Communism are not the same. The differences are subtle, to be sure, and are further confused by the fact that Marx's work is entitled "The Communist Manifesto", and that so many Communist regimes claim it as their guiding ideology (which is a bald-faced lie, as anyone who has read the book should know).
Here's a basic summary:
Socialism is an economic theory, best summed up as "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". In other words, everybody works at what they are good at, and the products of that work are shared for the benefit of all. Economic theory does not exist alone, but rather is paired with a political (aka social) theory. This pairing is referred to as a socio-economic theory.
Communism is a socio-economic theory. It takes the economic theory of Socialism, and adds the Totalitarian/Authoritarian political structure, creating what we know today as Communism. This is not necessarily bad, as Benevolent Dictatorship is the most efficient form of government. It generally ends up being bad, however, because, as we all know, power corrupts. This is what Orwell warned against in his writings.
This is also what McCarthy was fighting against, at least in his own mind, and in that view his actions can be justified. He was a nutcase, of course, who became addicted to the political power his crusade brought him. His crusade became a witchhunt, and thus McCarthyism became the bad word we know today.
On the other side of the spectrum we have Marxism, which is the socio-economic theory Marx proposed in The Communist Manifesto. This pairs Socialism with with Anarchy. It is a workable system on a small scale, but has never been (and I don't believe it ever will be) implemented on a large scale. It requires, in order to work, that those in power (especially those responsible for the distribution of goods) give up that power willingly. I think we all know how often that happens, which is why every Marxist revolution in history has resulted in a Communist regime.
Lastly, of course, we have Socialist Democracy, which has proven quite viable in Europe, the Scandinavian countries especially, and is beginning to take over South America as well. Further confusing the issue, Socialist Democracy is often referred to simply as Socialism. This makes sense in a way, as Democracy is to politics as Socialism is to economics; that is, a system which seeks to ensure the equality of all participants.
Not knowing a great deal about Shaw's personal politics, and knowing only slightly more about Orwell's, I would guess that they both favored Socialist Democracy, although Shaw, perhaps, seems to lean a little more towards Marxism.
I hope that clears up your confusion. This should in no way be considered a replacement for a real Political Science course, which would also explain the differences between Democracy, Capitalism, and the Free Market (no, they are not the same).
You can pick up an old silver top-loading VCR at any number of yard sales and thrift stores for $25 or less. I have never encountered one that recognized Macrovision, although many of them have only co-ax IO, and IIRC most DVD players are RCA IO only.
Alternatively, you can buy a little signal conditioning box the removes macrovision for about $100.
In case you are unaware of the technology involved (and I'm guessing you are if you've even bothered to ask this question), Macrovision is the "copyright protection technology" that makes VHS copies of DVDs look crappy. Generally it's effects are limited to making the copy fluctuate between a dark, perhaps barely visible picture, and a bright, perhaps washed out picture. Highly annoying, but it doesn't actually prevent copying, it just degrades the video quality of a copy to the point that most people won't bother.
Macrovision is also responsible for that little "curl" you sometimes see at the top of the screen while watching "protected" VHS tapes. It is a common misconception that this is caused by the tracking mechanism being misadjusted or the heads being dirty, but in actuality it is a side effect of the Macrovision "technology". This is why the above mentioned singal conditioners can be legally sold.
In summary, it is quite easy for any consumer, with a modest outlay of cash to purchase perfectly legal consumer technology, to make DVD to VHS copies.
I have no experience with making DVD to DVD copies, but my understanding from the little research I've done is that it's just as easy, if perhaps a little less legal. DVD-ROM drives are in the $40 range right now, and I've seen DVD burners for under $250 (though IIRC DVD burner formats that will play in consumer DVD players are more expensive, being around $400).
Note, though, that as far as I can tell CSS in no way prevents copying of DVDs (it's still possible to copy a DVD, CSS and all), but merely limits the equipment that the consumer can watch the DVD on to that officially approved by the MPAA for that particular part of the world. In theory, I could play a pirated copy of a region 1 DVD in my region 1 DVD player without difficulty. That's just a theory, mind you, as I haven't actually tried it. However, I have tried to watch legally obtained legitimate copies of region 2 DVDs and have been prevented from doing so. I have also had problem with low quality, but perfectly legitimate region 1 DVDs.
In summary, the "copy protection" on DVDs hurts only the legitimate consumer trying to watch their legitimately purchased media, without having any actual effect on pirates, since the equipment needed to make those copies is readily available at consumer level prices.
You're right, people did hate DOS. But those same people hate windows, too, and the most common complaint I hear is that it's always throwing up those little warning messages.
There were plenty of reasons for Windows to take over from DOS besides the GUI. Love it or hate it, it was certainly an improvement over what we had.
The problem with GUIs, though, is that they tend to get cluttered. Is having to sort through 50 icons with truncated filenames (which may or may not be descriptive of actual function) really any easier than remembering the commands to launch those applications? I would say it's about the same, especially for older people. The Windows desktop (and a lot of apps, too; RealPlayer and AOL come to mind) has become the computer equivalent of walking into a casino game room. There are so many thing vying for your attention that unless you know exactly where you are going, it's hard to figure out where you actually are.
I think Linux could work in a very controlled environment, when only the apps the users need are available through the menus in KDE or Gnome, but Linux isn't really designed for ease of use. And I wouldn't want to see it become dumbed-down just to compete with Windows.
I've always considered this to be kind of a troll, but I'll bite anyway, since you seem knowledgable enough to have an opinion worth listening to.
Controlled environment; how else would you do it? These are users, not admins. Of course its a controlled environment where only the apps the users need are available through the menus. If they really need to be able to install their own stuf, give them a modified version of one of the standard admin apps which gives them the ability to perform the tasks they need, and nothing more. If the new whizbang app they absolutely need to have requires root access to install, chances are it should be installed (or disallowed, as the case may be) by an admin anyway.
Frankly, I don't see how that's any different from a Windows environment. It's certainly no more difficult to use, and I don't see how Linux would have to be dumbed down in order to achieve it. Its really quite simple to make Linux appear to be dumbed down on the surface without it actually being dumbed down. In fact, that's the core selling point for almost every major distro.
That is actually not the case, there is a reason why Microsoft gave the "My Documents" folder special properties.
Yeah, so they could make it essentially the same as the *nix/home/user directory, which further invalidates the arguement I was responding to.
I would imagine... operating systems in the future... will come up with a DB layer on top of the filesystem
It's called the Registry, and it has as many problems as it does benefits.
Instead of having to give your documents a filename and then finding a suitable folder to save it in, you could just have the computer do that part for you.
It's already being done, although by the individual app (which is argueably better suited to the task), rather than the OS.
The point I was trying to make was that, while these will certainly be the users that make things most difficult during a transition, how is that really any different than how they already are?
They are already a hassle, so why not make the hassle at least worthwhile by making it a hassle on a real OS?
One strange thing about older users, at least in my experience, is they tend to be more comfortable with a command line. A lot of them find most GUIs to be cluttered, and they get lost among all the buttons, menus, and icons. The command line is "quieter". Sure, they have to remember what the commands are to do the work they have to do, but those can be written down more easily than directions to a particular sub-menu.
It probably has something to do with the fact that most of them were introduced to computers using DOS. It always seems more comfortable doing things the way you first learned how to do them.
Most Windows users don't know where the C drive is. They store everything they do in My Documents because that's what the save screen defaults to. They may put in some subdirectories, but that's about as advanced as your likely to see on the average user's machine.
You could tell the average windows user they have to save everything on the D drive and you'd encounter at least as much panic as you would switching them to a different OS.
They could always try recompiling them. As long as they aren't written in VB, who knows, it just might work. There may be some porting necessary, and I don't have any experience with porting to know how big of a problem that would be (I've only tried it on a few simple C++ programs I wrote in Borland on Windows, and I didn't have any problems with a straight recompile).
If they are written in VB, I remember seeing a Borland ad that said they will port VB apps to Linux about 2 years ago. That might be worth looking into.
This is assuming, of course, that these are specialized in-house apps. It would be nice if there were a little more detail provided about the nature of these specialized apps, or even what business the guy is in might help us name some alternatives.
Who knows, maybe the providor of those apps have already done, or are working on, a Linux port. Has he talked to them about it?
Make sure they stop billing you
on
Disconnecting
·
· Score: 2
My dad had all kinds of problems with Earthlink when they bought JPS. Double billing, spontaneously discontinued service, you name it. He finally brow-beat them into giving him "for free" the 6 months of service he had already prepaid for under JPS (at double his previous rate, of course). Before the whole thing was over they tried to bill him for it 3 times. Fortunately he keeps every scrap of paper he ever recieves from any company he does business with, immaculately organized, for at least 5 years (sometimes more, when I bought his old truck from him a few years ago he handed me it's file, which had reciepts for oil changes from 1986). He's also run construction crews for 15 years, so he knows a thing or two about being intimidating. The combination is unbeatable in such situations, although I have to give Earthlink props for holding out longer than any company I had previously witnessed him deal with.
Anyway, after the "free" six months was up, Erthlink told him that , not only did he owe them for the last 6 months (which was "free", remember), but that he was obligated to pay for another 6 months, and that he had to give them his credit card number so they could bill him automatically. My dad, having an inherent distrust of corporations, would never have gone for automatic billing anyway, but after all the effort Earthlink had put into trying to screw him, he told them where they could stick their automatic billing and cancelled his account. It took another 3 months for him to get them to stop billing him for service on his canceled account!
The lesson here for you, Katz, is keep a close eye on your credit card bills and make sure they aren't still charging you for your disconnected service. You may even want to take some proactive steps with your credit card company.
Which is exactly why I recomend that you go to College.
The first year or two is about teaching you communication and reasoning. That's what a Liberal Arts education is all about. You can't communicate effectively with someone else unless you understand their perspective, and College general ed is all about forcing you to understand many different ways of looking at the world through exposure to art, social sciences, history, etc. It may seem pointless at the time, but the added perspective of just being exposed to those things become invaluable in the real world.
Upper division courses are where those communication and reasoning skills are really applied to your chosen field. This is where you will learn the concepts behind the methods that you will actually use in the field. You don't need to know the concepts to use the methods, but it does give you an edge by making your knowledge more portable (understanding the concept of ACLs, for example, makes it much easier to understand and use the various implementations on different OSs).
Having a degree also makes your resume more visible. The main reason, in my experience, is that having one demonstrates a willingness to persevere, even through tasks that seem pointless. People with degrees tend to be less volitile, more able to see projects through to completion, and generally have a bigger "toolbox" from which to pull solutions to complex problems.
I thought I wanted to be an Electronic Engineer until I took some programming classes. Being introduced to *nix was the final nail in the coffin of that career track.
Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy playing with hardware, but it just doesn't get me as excited as software does. I could definately see myself working with embedded systems, though...
The disks that are hosing the firmware are NOT music CD's
That is a technicality which in no way invalidates my critism of Apple's design. The firmware of a system sold as an appliance should not be easily modifiable by any mere disk which is inserted into any drive connected to said system. That the disk that actually did the damage was a music CD (or more accurately a disk which was intentionally packaged and marketed in such a way that it would be mistaken for one) simply serves to make the situation that more rediculous.
I definately agree that Sony should face criminal charges, and I very much hope that Apple has a hand in bringing those forces to bear. Apple has always presented itself as a consumer oriented company, and I think this is an excellent opportunity for them to prove themselves in that arena.
As I understand it, Apple has chosen to design their computers in such a way that a music CD inserted into the CD-ROM drive is capable of hosing the machines firmware. That sure sounds like a faulty product to me.
In a way, I could understand something like that happening to PCs, since there's a DIY tradition in the PC space. That isn't what Apple sells, particularly with regard to the iMac.
The IMac is sold as an appliance; something you just plug in and it works, something you never have to think about. For a product like that, firmware should be inaccesible without special tools. A firmware upgrade should be something that you bring it into the shop for. A music CD should not be able to damage the firmware of an appliance. That is piss-poor design on Apples part, and the product is most certainly at fault for being vulnerable to something so inane.
That said, though, I don't believe Apple should have to pay for the repairs. Sony is the company guilty of malicious cracking here, and needs to be brought to task for their actions, just as would any cracker that distributed a Trojan Horse. That is a federal crime, after all.
What would be really cool of Apple to do is defer payment for the repairs and join into the burgeoning suits against the responsible record company(s). After all, it does seem like Apple's hardware has been specifically targeted, and it looks like Sony is playing a big part in this particular fiasco, and Sony does compete with Apple in the personal computer market...
It seems to me that if Apple has the cajones, this could turn into something much more than a simple slap on the wrist of a big record company.
Because, as everyone knows, pornographers are Satanists, and they are preparing the world for the arival of their Dark Master by corrupting the minds of the human race. Everyone also knows that young minds are more easily corrupted, and thus it serves their goals more completely to target their filth towards children.
Or maybe it's just because the porn industry still pays its advertisers, and these sites are just trying to get as many page views as possible...
So in otherwords; you tried GIMP after already being familiar with PS, and were biased towards what you already knew.
I'm not saying there's necessarily anything wrong with it (OK, there is, but it's basic human nature, so it's at least excusable). My point is that you're completely missing the arguement being made: That either interface is just as easy for the beginner to learn. New dogs learn new tricks easily. Once you've learned how to do something, you will almost always be biased towards the way you origionally learned to do it. It seems easier that way, more natural, because you've been doing it that way longer. Unless the new way is obviously and significantly better, you will probably never change your mind.
In this specific case, the arguement is that the GIMP interface is no better or worse than the PS interface, and the a preference for one over the other is the result of training, and not actually based on the merits of the interfaces themselves.
Even a small design house could probably afford to pay $2000-4000... and have a gimp developer fix CMYK support in a few days.
Which is exactly what leads me to believe that it's non-trivial. If it were that easy, someone would have done it already.
If I were designing a GIMP-like program, I would probably put color handling in the core of the program. After all, that's what it does. I doubt that the switch from RGB to CMYK could be done with a plugin. More likely it would require a rewrite of the core logic, which would certainly not be a few days work.
A filter to convert RGB to CMYK could be used, I suppose, but I doubt that would satisfy the pros. Most of them seem to like being able to manipulate the color balance directly while working with the image, and a filter wouldn't give that kind of flexibility.
Photoshop has many more features and better useability than GIMP does.
Such as?
Personally, I've found the usability of PS and GIMP to be on par for the beginner. Beyond that, any judgement of usability is biased towards what one already knows. To someone trained in PS, sure it seems more usable. That's what you know, and the instances where things are done differently in GIMP seem backwards to you. To someone like me there is no difference between the two with regards to ease of use (I've used them both enough to feel like I can say that with a straight face).
What are these other features though? All the graphic designers seem to be in agreement that they are missing, and yet nobody ever lists them.
While I agree with most of your points about Photoshop, there is one extremely important area PS handles that GIMP doesn't (not even a little bit, as I understand it). That area is CMYK. For an ameteur RGB is just fine, but a professional absolutely needs CMYK, since that's what high end output devices use.
Why CMYK? I can't say for sure, not being a graphic designer, but I assume it produces higher color depth. The K stands for black, which obviously isn't a component of RGB. I do have some friends who are graphic designers, so I could ask them if you really want to know. I did recently interview for a job at a print house, which is where I learned that high end printers, etc, use CMYK.
I would guess that adding CMYK to GIMP is non-trivial. My reasoning is that it's a fundamentally different way of handling color. There could also be some IP issues if some company owns patents regarding CMYK printing. I'm sure a google search would turn up more information.
I've wondered for some time why graphic designers don't think GIMP is ready for them, and it's true that most of the time they seem unable to give a real reason. I asked in as nice a way as possible, and CMYK is the only answer I got. It may not be the only problem, but I think if it could be solved, the rest would be pretty minor.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple invented Plug & Play and NO ONE has yet to match it.
Granted, I don't have as much Mac experience as you do, but my experiences with Mac Plug & Play have all been nightmares. When a closed hardware system doesn't even recognize the modem it shipped with, it's seriously pathetic. I've never had Plug & Play problems on PCs that came anywhere close to the ones I've had with Macs.
And as for the school thing, the high school I went to is only a little bigger than yours, and I'm aware of 1 Mac, which is in the graphic arts department.
And what do certs have to do with anything?
anyone who's grown up on a complex and responsive system like Linus will find Windows a breeze
Similarly, anyone who's grown up living in a house will find a cardboard box much simpler... if a bit restrictive and uncomfortable.
The more I learn about *nix, the more I find myself contemplating violent action against my Windows box.
They'll have a longer product cycle (Macs last forever and retain their value much better than cobbled-together PCs), which means the district won't have to upgrade their hardware nearly as often.
The hardware doesn't last any longer than PC hardware, and Apple has demonstrated more than once that it is willing to completely abandon users with hardware only a couple of years old. Not even Microsoft does that. Since schools don't sell their old hardware, retained value is irrelevant.
They'll upgrade their software for much less than with a Windows solution
Because Apple completely abandons it's platforms every few years, and thus it will be impossible for them to upgrade their software.
and they won't be compelled to upgrade.
Unless, of course, they need to for some reason, in which case they'll have to buy a whole new system instead of just buying new software.
Macs are already entrenched in education
This hasn't been true for over a decade now. There are a few die-hards still using Macs in education, and they're generally only used for teaching Photoshop.
they're ease of use is legendary.
I've always found Macs more difficult to use, particularly from an administration perspective. Besides, kids will learn whatever you put in front of them.
Quartz is, without a doubt, the best user interface ever.
I'm sure that there is no doubt in the Mac community, but everyone I know prefers KDE.
There is a plethora of commercial applications for Mac OS. These are generally easier to use and are better-supported than Free software applications.
This is true for the moment, but it is very quickly becoming untrue. However, ease of use is a straw man in education. Again, kids will learn whatever you put in front of them.
They're inexpensive. You can already get an iMac for $799, and the education discounts that Apple gives are significant.
I can personally buy a PC that would serve the same purpose for under $600, and most PC OEMs offer fund-matching grants to schools, effectively halving the price. That price includes Windows and MS Office.
Alternatively, I can pick up some dandy X terminals for $50 each at the local Salvation Army, or I could build 5 of them using the spare parts I have in my closet.
While Linux is an excellent OS for those who love choice, freedom and hacking (in the "programming" context), it isn't really ready for widespread use on the desktops of non-technical users.
Perhaps you should try a modern distro, maybe one that includes a graphical environment like KDE. I'll agree that it can be difficult to install new software in Linux, but that's the absolute last thing you want student users doing anyway. In my experience, student installed software accounts for over 80% of administrative costs and headaches in a school network environment.
Linus wouldn't do that, nor should he. He's much to laid back and has far less of a stake in the GPL than RMS. RMS would be much more amusing in that role, anyway. Once he got hold of them he'd never let go, and he'd make a ton of noise about it, too.
Mac dominance in schools? Not in the last decade. MS has been by far dominant in schools in that period of time. This has been mostly due to donations from OEMs like Gateway, but there has also been influence from the business world, which tends to see school as job training.
Basically, Macs have been relegated to art departments since the early 90s. Even my uncle, a high school teacher and die-hard Mac fan, eventually had to come over to the dark side.
Besides, even when Macs weredominant in schools, that wasn't what people had in their homes. Apple's logic was flawed. It was the parents who were shelling out the cash for these systems, and they had the choice between the tech their 12 year old said was cool, or the tech they used every day at work. The only time the Mac won that arguement was when it was the tech the parent used at work, and graphic artists and teachers have never been a large subset of the population.
It is quite possible to speak out against Communism without supporting McCarthy and Orwell is a prime example of that situation.
Which is exactly what the post said. Tthe assumption you claim was in fact never made, and therefore I suggest that you read it again, as you have obviously misunderstood it.
Read the post again. Many McCarthians point to Orwell's works to support their denouncement of socialism in all it's forms, and the parent merely pointed out that, since Orwell himself was a socialist, perhaps the McCarthians should rethink that tactic.
The idea that Orwell was McCarthian is a complete misreading of the parent post.
It's important to point out that Socialism and Communism are not the same. The differences are subtle, to be sure, and are further confused by the fact that Marx's work is entitled "The Communist Manifesto", and that so many Communist regimes claim it as their guiding ideology (which is a bald-faced lie, as anyone who has read the book should know).
Here's a basic summary:
Socialism is an economic theory, best summed up as "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". In other words, everybody works at what they are good at, and the products of that work are shared for the benefit of all. Economic theory does not exist alone, but rather is paired with a political (aka social) theory. This pairing is referred to as a socio-economic theory.
Communism is a socio-economic theory. It takes the economic theory of Socialism, and adds the Totalitarian/Authoritarian political structure, creating what we know today as Communism. This is not necessarily bad, as Benevolent Dictatorship is the most efficient form of government. It generally ends up being bad, however, because, as we all know, power corrupts. This is what Orwell warned against in his writings.
This is also what McCarthy was fighting against, at least in his own mind, and in that view his actions can be justified. He was a nutcase, of course, who became addicted to the political power his crusade brought him. His crusade became a witchhunt, and thus McCarthyism became the bad word we know today.
On the other side of the spectrum we have Marxism, which is the socio-economic theory Marx proposed in The Communist Manifesto. This pairs Socialism with with Anarchy. It is a workable system on a small scale, but has never been (and I don't believe it ever will be) implemented on a large scale. It requires, in order to work, that those in power (especially those responsible for the distribution of goods) give up that power willingly. I think we all know how often that happens, which is why every Marxist revolution in history has resulted in a Communist regime.
Lastly, of course, we have Socialist Democracy, which has proven quite viable in Europe, the Scandinavian countries especially, and is beginning to take over South America as well. Further confusing the issue, Socialist Democracy is often referred to simply as Socialism. This makes sense in a way, as Democracy is to politics as Socialism is to economics; that is, a system which seeks to ensure the equality of all participants.
Not knowing a great deal about Shaw's personal politics, and knowing only slightly more about Orwell's, I would guess that they both favored Socialist Democracy, although Shaw, perhaps, seems to lean a little more towards Marxism.
I hope that clears up your confusion. This should in no way be considered a replacement for a real Political Science course, which would also explain the differences between Democracy, Capitalism, and the Free Market (no, they are not the same).
Thanks for the correction.
You say "an ordinary DVD-burner";is it a limitation built into consumer grade DVD*R, or is that info in an area only accessable with a press?
And yet, Yoda, Mace Windu, and Linus Torvalds are all beardless...
Perhaps there is an exception for such 'MetaGurus'?
You can pick up an old silver top-loading VCR at any number of yard sales and thrift stores for $25 or less. I have never encountered one that recognized Macrovision, although many of them have only co-ax IO, and IIRC most DVD players are RCA IO only.
Alternatively, you can buy a little signal conditioning box the removes macrovision for about $100.
In case you are unaware of the technology involved (and I'm guessing you are if you've even bothered to ask this question), Macrovision is the "copyright protection technology" that makes VHS copies of DVDs look crappy. Generally it's effects are limited to making the copy fluctuate between a dark, perhaps barely visible picture, and a bright, perhaps washed out picture. Highly annoying, but it doesn't actually prevent copying, it just degrades the video quality of a copy to the point that most people won't bother.
Macrovision is also responsible for that little "curl" you sometimes see at the top of the screen while watching "protected" VHS tapes. It is a common misconception that this is caused by the tracking mechanism being misadjusted or the heads being dirty, but in actuality it is a side effect of the Macrovision "technology". This is why the above mentioned singal conditioners can be legally sold.
In summary, it is quite easy for any consumer, with a modest outlay of cash to purchase perfectly legal consumer technology, to make DVD to VHS copies.
I have no experience with making DVD to DVD copies, but my understanding from the little research I've done is that it's just as easy, if perhaps a little less legal. DVD-ROM drives are in the $40 range right now, and I've seen DVD burners for under $250 (though IIRC DVD burner formats that will play in consumer DVD players are more expensive, being around $400).
Note, though, that as far as I can tell CSS in no way prevents copying of DVDs (it's still possible to copy a DVD, CSS and all), but merely limits the equipment that the consumer can watch the DVD on to that officially approved by the MPAA for that particular part of the world. In theory, I could play a pirated copy of a region 1 DVD in my region 1 DVD player without difficulty. That's just a theory, mind you, as I haven't actually tried it. However, I have tried to watch legally obtained legitimate copies of region 2 DVDs and have been prevented from doing so. I have also had problem with low quality, but perfectly legitimate region 1 DVDs.
In summary, the "copy protection" on DVDs hurts only the legitimate consumer trying to watch their legitimately purchased media, without having any actual effect on pirates, since the equipment needed to make those copies is readily available at consumer level prices.
You're right, people did hate DOS. But those same people hate windows, too, and the most common complaint I hear is that it's always throwing up those little warning messages.
There were plenty of reasons for Windows to take over from DOS besides the GUI. Love it or hate it, it was certainly an improvement over what we had.
The problem with GUIs, though, is that they tend to get cluttered. Is having to sort through 50 icons with truncated filenames (which may or may not be descriptive of actual function) really any easier than remembering the commands to launch those applications? I would say it's about the same, especially for older people. The Windows desktop (and a lot of apps, too; RealPlayer and AOL come to mind) has become the computer equivalent of walking into a casino game room. There are so many thing vying for your attention that unless you know exactly where you are going, it's hard to figure out where you actually are.
I think Linux could work in a very controlled environment, when only the apps the users need are available through the menus in KDE or Gnome, but Linux isn't really designed for ease of use. And I wouldn't want to see it become dumbed-down just to compete with Windows.
I've always considered this to be kind of a troll, but I'll bite anyway, since you seem knowledgable enough to have an opinion worth listening to.
Controlled environment; how else would you do it? These are users, not admins. Of course its a controlled environment where only the apps the users need are available through the menus. If they really need to be able to install their own stuf, give them a modified version of one of the standard admin apps which gives them the ability to perform the tasks they need, and nothing more. If the new whizbang app they absolutely need to have requires root access to install, chances are it should be installed (or disallowed, as the case may be) by an admin anyway.
Frankly, I don't see how that's any different from a Windows environment. It's certainly no more difficult to use, and I don't see how Linux would have to be dumbed down in order to achieve it. Its really quite simple to make Linux appear to be dumbed down on the surface without it actually being dumbed down. In fact, that's the core selling point for almost every major distro.
That is actually not the case, there is a reason why Microsoft gave the "My Documents" folder special properties.
/home/user directory, which further invalidates the arguement I was responding to.
... operating systems in the future ... will come up with a DB layer on top of the filesystem
Yeah, so they could make it essentially the same as the *nix
I would imagine
It's called the Registry, and it has as many problems as it does benefits.
Instead of having to give your documents a filename and then finding a suitable folder to save it in, you could just have the computer do that part for you.
It's already being done, although by the individual app (which is argueably better suited to the task), rather than the OS.
The point I was trying to make was that, while these will certainly be the users that make things most difficult during a transition, how is that really any different than how they already are?
They are already a hassle, so why not make the hassle at least worthwhile by making it a hassle on a real OS?
One strange thing about older users, at least in my experience, is they tend to be more comfortable with a command line. A lot of them find most GUIs to be cluttered, and they get lost among all the buttons, menus, and icons. The command line is "quieter". Sure, they have to remember what the commands are to do the work they have to do, but those can be written down more easily than directions to a particular sub-menu.
It probably has something to do with the fact that most of them were introduced to computers using DOS. It always seems more comfortable doing things the way you first learned how to do them.
Most Windows users don't know where the C drive is. They store everything they do in My Documents because that's what the save screen defaults to. They may put in some subdirectories, but that's about as advanced as your likely to see on the average user's machine.
You could tell the average windows user they have to save everything on the D drive and you'd encounter at least as much panic as you would switching them to a different OS.
They could always try recompiling them. As long as they aren't written in VB, who knows, it just might work. There may be some porting necessary, and I don't have any experience with porting to know how big of a problem that would be (I've only tried it on a few simple C++ programs I wrote in Borland on Windows, and I didn't have any problems with a straight recompile).
If they are written in VB, I remember seeing a Borland ad that said they will port VB apps to Linux about 2 years ago. That might be worth looking into.
This is assuming, of course, that these are specialized in-house apps. It would be nice if there were a little more detail provided about the nature of these specialized apps, or even what business the guy is in might help us name some alternatives.
Who knows, maybe the providor of those apps have already done, or are working on, a Linux port. Has he talked to them about it?
My dad had all kinds of problems with Earthlink when they bought JPS. Double billing, spontaneously discontinued service, you name it. He finally brow-beat them into giving him "for free" the 6 months of service he had already prepaid for under JPS (at double his previous rate, of course). Before the whole thing was over they tried to bill him for it 3 times. Fortunately he keeps every scrap of paper he ever recieves from any company he does business with, immaculately organized, for at least 5 years (sometimes more, when I bought his old truck from him a few years ago he handed me it's file, which had reciepts for oil changes from 1986). He's also run construction crews for 15 years, so he knows a thing or two about being intimidating. The combination is unbeatable in such situations, although I have to give Earthlink props for holding out longer than any company I had previously witnessed him deal with.
Anyway, after the "free" six months was up, Erthlink told him that , not only did he owe them for the last 6 months (which was "free", remember), but that he was obligated to pay for another 6 months, and that he had to give them his credit card number so they could bill him automatically. My dad, having an inherent distrust of corporations, would never have gone for automatic billing anyway, but after all the effort Earthlink had put into trying to screw him, he told them where they could stick their automatic billing and cancelled his account. It took another 3 months for him to get them to stop billing him for service on his canceled account!
The lesson here for you, Katz, is keep a close eye on your credit card bills and make sure they aren't still charging you for your disconnected service. You may even want to take some proactive steps with your credit card company.
Which is exactly why I recomend that you go to College.
The first year or two is about teaching you communication and reasoning. That's what a Liberal Arts education is all about. You can't communicate effectively with someone else unless you understand their perspective, and College general ed is all about forcing you to understand many different ways of looking at the world through exposure to art, social sciences, history, etc. It may seem pointless at the time, but the added perspective of just being exposed to those things become invaluable in the real world.
Upper division courses are where those communication and reasoning skills are really applied to your chosen field. This is where you will learn the concepts behind the methods that you will actually use in the field. You don't need to know the concepts to use the methods, but it does give you an edge by making your knowledge more portable (understanding the concept of ACLs, for example, makes it much easier to understand and use the various implementations on different OSs).
Having a degree also makes your resume more visible. The main reason, in my experience, is that having one demonstrates a willingness to persevere, even through tasks that seem pointless. People with degrees tend to be less volitile, more able to see projects through to completion, and generally have a bigger "toolbox" from which to pull solutions to complex problems.
Agreed.
I thought I wanted to be an Electronic Engineer until I took some programming classes. Being introduced to *nix was the final nail in the coffin of that career track.
Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy playing with hardware, but it just doesn't get me as excited as software does. I could definately see myself working with embedded systems, though...
The disks that are hosing the firmware are NOT music CD's
That is a technicality which in no way invalidates my critism of Apple's design. The firmware of a system sold as an appliance should not be easily modifiable by any mere disk which is inserted into any drive connected to said system. That the disk that actually did the damage was a music CD (or more accurately a disk which was intentionally packaged and marketed in such a way that it would be mistaken for one) simply serves to make the situation that more rediculous.
I definately agree that Sony should face criminal charges, and I very much hope that Apple has a hand in bringing those forces to bear. Apple has always presented itself as a consumer oriented company, and I think this is an excellent opportunity for them to prove themselves in that arena.
As I understand it, Apple has chosen to design their computers in such a way that a music CD inserted into the CD-ROM drive is capable of hosing the machines firmware. That sure sounds like a faulty product to me.
In a way, I could understand something like that happening to PCs, since there's a DIY tradition in the PC space. That isn't what Apple sells, particularly with regard to the iMac.
The IMac is sold as an appliance; something you just plug in and it works, something you never have to think about. For a product like that, firmware should be inaccesible without special tools. A firmware upgrade should be something that you bring it into the shop for. A music CD should not be able to damage the firmware of an appliance. That is piss-poor design on Apples part, and the product is most certainly at fault for being vulnerable to something so inane.
That said, though, I don't believe Apple should have to pay for the repairs. Sony is the company guilty of malicious cracking here, and needs to be brought to task for their actions, just as would any cracker that distributed a Trojan Horse. That is a federal crime, after all.
What would be really cool of Apple to do is defer payment for the repairs and join into the burgeoning suits against the responsible record company(s). After all, it does seem like Apple's hardware has been specifically targeted, and it looks like Sony is playing a big part in this particular fiasco, and Sony does compete with Apple in the personal computer market...
It seems to me that if Apple has the cajones, this could turn into something much more than a simple slap on the wrist of a big record company.
Because, as everyone knows, pornographers are Satanists, and they are preparing the world for the arival of their Dark Master by corrupting the minds of the human race. Everyone also knows that young minds are more easily corrupted, and thus it serves their goals more completely to target their filth towards children.
Or maybe it's just because the porn industry still pays its advertisers, and these sites are just trying to get as many page views as possible...
So in otherwords; you tried GIMP after already being familiar with PS, and were biased towards what you already knew.
I'm not saying there's necessarily anything wrong with it (OK, there is, but it's basic human nature, so it's at least excusable). My point is that you're completely missing the arguement being made: That either interface is just as easy for the beginner to learn. New dogs learn new tricks easily. Once you've learned how to do something, you will almost always be biased towards the way you origionally learned to do it. It seems easier that way, more natural, because you've been doing it that way longer. Unless the new way is obviously and significantly better, you will probably never change your mind.
In this specific case, the arguement is that the GIMP interface is no better or worse than the PS interface, and the a preference for one over the other is the result of training, and not actually based on the merits of the interfaces themselves.
Even a small design house could probably afford to pay $2000-4000 ... and have a gimp developer fix CMYK support in a few days.
Which is exactly what leads me to believe that it's non-trivial. If it were that easy, someone would have done it already.
If I were designing a GIMP-like program, I would probably put color handling in the core of the program. After all, that's what it does. I doubt that the switch from RGB to CMYK could be done with a plugin. More likely it would require a rewrite of the core logic, which would certainly not be a few days work.
A filter to convert RGB to CMYK could be used, I suppose, but I doubt that would satisfy the pros. Most of them seem to like being able to manipulate the color balance directly while working with the image, and a filter wouldn't give that kind of flexibility.
Photoshop has many more features and better useability than GIMP does.
Such as?
Personally, I've found the usability of PS and GIMP to be on par for the beginner. Beyond that, any judgement of usability is biased towards what one already knows. To someone trained in PS, sure it seems more usable. That's what you know, and the instances where things are done differently in GIMP seem backwards to you. To someone like me there is no difference between the two with regards to ease of use (I've used them both enough to feel like I can say that with a straight face).
What are these other features though? All the graphic designers seem to be in agreement that they are missing, and yet nobody ever lists them.
And another question...
Why are these responses always posted AC?
While I agree with most of your points about Photoshop, there is one extremely important area PS handles that GIMP doesn't (not even a little bit, as I understand it). That area is CMYK. For an ameteur RGB is just fine, but a professional absolutely needs CMYK, since that's what high end output devices use.
Why CMYK? I can't say for sure, not being a graphic designer, but I assume it produces higher color depth. The K stands for black, which obviously isn't a component of RGB. I do have some friends who are graphic designers, so I could ask them if you really want to know. I did recently interview for a job at a print house, which is where I learned that high end printers, etc, use CMYK.
I would guess that adding CMYK to GIMP is non-trivial. My reasoning is that it's a fundamentally different way of handling color. There could also be some IP issues if some company owns patents regarding CMYK printing. I'm sure a google search would turn up more information.
I've wondered for some time why graphic designers don't think GIMP is ready for them, and it's true that most of the time they seem unable to give a real reason. I asked in as nice a way as possible, and CMYK is the only answer I got. It may not be the only problem, but I think if it could be solved, the rest would be pretty minor.