My father told me why he didn't want me joining the peace corps. (He worked in direct association with peace corps workers for a couple of years.) From what he said, I'd say there were, at any rate, far too many peace corps workers who couldn't control their libidos.
You are are, pardon me for saying so, excreting in your own economic water.
The solution to Africa's problems are sort of complex, but they include more westerners who can go over there and keep their hands out of everybody else's pants. Economically and physically.
Some of the news on the site you linked refers to that.
The other is mentioned on the mklinux site, isn't it?
(I remember this, having used mklinux in a classroom environment back in '98. One of my coworkers was hassling me because it wasn't even intel-based linux.)
Ever since I got hooked into this industry (Don't remember now whether it was the Altair or IMSAI we built in high school.) there has always been this hubris. "Our product solves all your problems now*." and the punch line, "*real soon now."
There was one of the original car analogies back in the 80's to represent the hubris, you remember the one about Cadillacs costing a dime and fitting in your pocket?
The truth is, the computer industry is just another part of the industrial revolution, another face of the development of the engine. But we, the engineers, still have no real hold on what a good OS or language is. Cocoa is getting close, the promise of Interface Builder not quite as cruelly broken in XCode as the promise of VB was broken in VS. But the promise is broken, because we still aren't willing to admit that software systems are just, well, systems -- tools, meant for use and not for worship.
Certain fringe teachers at BYU back in the '80s sold me on the idea of software tools. No company I've worked for has ever allowed me the time to build tools, partly because the OSses are designed to help the company that sells the OS (and maybe, until the capture is complete, 3rd parties) to sell you more tools.
Sure, Mac OS X is more open, and in a better way than MSWindowsXXX was more open than the old Mac. But I still can't use it to build my tools in a reasonably efficient manner.
(Dashboard? Kanbenshitekure.)
Everybody's selling a framework, but the framework costs tons of time to learn to use effectively. A tool I wrote in BASIC took about a hundred lines and was done in an afternoon. Sure, it didn't let me tweak the font and all, but I could build teaching materials with it and save myself time. Trying to reproduce that tool on the old Mac took me about 6 months, after about a year of trying to find books to give me an introduction I could figure out without dropping $3000 dollars on the dude ranch or whatever that's called.
Yeah, in retrospect, I suppose it would have been cheaper for me to have mortgaged my first child, borrowed the $3000, plus another $1000 for plane fare and just gone. But it shouldn't have to be that way. Mac OS X is still in the same spot. Likewise Java, and just about everything else available. When you find yourself wanting to go the next step to do your real work, you're dropping another chunk of gold to buy that next step. (And quite possibly mortgaging something that you really shouldn't mortgage to get the gold.)
M$'s junk? Well, sure, BASIC was a shallow learning curve, until you realized that you really did need a larger font for the younger students, and then you _still_ hit that wall where Micro$oft wants to $ell you their framework de jure.
Mac OS X is not as tightly focused on Apple's bottom line as M$WindowsXXX is focused on Steve Ballmers' bottom line, but it's still focused on a small group of existing enterprises, tamed and civilized areas.
But if computers aren't helping us to be pioneers, they aren't fulfilling their potential, and they aren't helping us improve the world.
That is what's missing from Mac OS X, and that is exactly why the thousands of divergent distros is all the more reason for using Linux and BSD wherever you can. Lot's more people to help cut through the jungle.
And if you think about how hard it is for the real pioneers to get a meaningful return on the time and money they invest, perhaps this whole argument about which gentlemen's agreement (license) you sign up with makes more sense, too.
I know, the wife (or the wife within if there is no literal wife) wants a picket fence in a secure neighborhood. But each of us faces our own jungles. The picket fence has always been an illusion. (So is the wife, but...)
Slashdot Mirror
Give a child a jet-powered fishing pole?
Comparing an XO with a jetski demonstrates that you prefer arguing with a strawman to actually doing any research on the subject of the debate.
Negroponte says the whole problem was that iNTEL was _not_ pouring much of anything in.
They paid the membership fee.
Putting Puppy Linux on, maybe?
(not wikipedia, the olpc wiki)
Go read.
At least, read the descriptions of the books.
My father told me why he didn't want me joining the peace corps. (He worked in direct association with peace corps workers for a couple of years.) From what he said, I'd say there were, at any rate, far too many peace corps workers who couldn't control their libidos.
including the gold and diamonds?
You are are, pardon me for saying so, excreting in your own economic water.
The solution to Africa's problems are sort of complex, but they include more westerners who can go over there and keep their hands out of everybody else's pants. Economically and physically.
huh?
amateur _is_ the only way to experience radio.
It's kind of like, do you run your own server, or do you just surf the web?
Some of the news on the site you linked refers to that.
The other is mentioned on the mklinux site, isn't it?
(I remember this, having used mklinux in a classroom environment back in '98. One of my coworkers was hassling me because it wasn't even intel-based linux.)
Ever since I got hooked into this industry (Don't remember now whether it was the Altair or IMSAI we built in high school.) there has always been this hubris. "Our product solves all your problems now*." and the punch line, "*real soon now."
...)
There was one of the original car analogies back in the 80's to represent the hubris, you remember the one about Cadillacs costing a dime and fitting in your pocket?
The truth is, the computer industry is just another part of the industrial revolution, another face of the development of the engine. But we, the engineers, still have no real hold on what a good OS or language is. Cocoa is getting close, the promise of Interface Builder not quite as cruelly broken in XCode as the promise of VB was broken in VS. But the promise is broken, because we still aren't willing to admit that software systems are just, well, systems -- tools, meant for use and not for worship.
Certain fringe teachers at BYU back in the '80s sold me on the idea of software tools. No company I've worked for has ever allowed me the time to build tools, partly because the OSses are designed to help the company that sells the OS (and maybe, until the capture is complete, 3rd parties) to sell you more tools.
Sure, Mac OS X is more open, and in a better way than MSWindowsXXX was more open than the old Mac. But I still can't use it to build my tools in a reasonably efficient manner.
(Dashboard? Kanbenshitekure.)
Everybody's selling a framework, but the framework costs tons of time to learn to use effectively. A tool I wrote in BASIC took about a hundred lines and was done in an afternoon. Sure, it didn't let me tweak the font and all, but I could build teaching materials with it and save myself time. Trying to reproduce that tool on the old Mac took me about 6 months, after about a year of trying to find books to give me an introduction I could figure out without dropping $3000 dollars on the dude ranch or whatever that's called.
Yeah, in retrospect, I suppose it would have been cheaper for me to have mortgaged my first child, borrowed the $3000, plus another $1000 for plane fare and just gone. But it shouldn't have to be that way. Mac OS X is still in the same spot. Likewise Java, and just about everything else available. When you find yourself wanting to go the next step to do your real work, you're dropping another chunk of gold to buy that next step. (And quite possibly mortgaging something that you really shouldn't mortgage to get the gold.)
M$'s junk? Well, sure, BASIC was a shallow learning curve, until you realized that you really did need a larger font for the younger students, and then you _still_ hit that wall where Micro$oft wants to $ell you their framework de jure.
Mac OS X is not as tightly focused on Apple's bottom line as M$WindowsXXX is focused on Steve Ballmers' bottom line, but it's still focused on a small group of existing enterprises, tamed and civilized areas.
But if computers aren't helping us to be pioneers, they aren't fulfilling their potential, and they aren't helping us improve the world.
That is what's missing from Mac OS X, and that is exactly why the thousands of divergent distros is all the more reason for using Linux and BSD wherever you can. Lot's more people to help cut through the jungle.
And if you think about how hard it is for the real pioneers to get a meaningful return on the time and money they invest, perhaps this whole argument about which gentlemen's agreement (license) you sign up with makes more sense, too.
I know, the wife (or the wife within if there is no literal wife) wants a picket fence in a secure neighborhood. But each of us faces our own jungles. The picket fence has always been an illusion. (So is the wife, but
I fear I am not making sense, so I'll stop here.
I must say that I wish my successes were as "imaginary" as Negroponte's.
Hmm.
Is that possibly one of the reasons for the animosity from Microsoft and certain others?
Should we let you die out and then our world will stabilize itself? Pink Floyd isn't anyone to quote, really, but they've also said it: Us and Them.