I agree with this. I have been working with computers since an early age. Many have forgotten what well optimized code is. Many of their "features" are marketing driven, and not user driven. The shoddy archetuture (ok so I cant spell this morning) of their software reflects this. M$ does not have a lot of my respect due to their almost total lack of regard for those who have come before and built the technology upon which they base their products. It all comes down to the fact that they have built a business model that requires that they own everything, and the consequences of this are beginning to become apparent to the average joe user. I can't help but wonder what would have been if they contributed to things rather than destroyed them.
All I was really saying is that their core ideals have created something that makes easy stuff easy, but anything else is torture. Given that the Linux community is beginning to build these things again, we should be able to look at what they have done, and filter out those things that drive the not-so-average user nuts.
Yeah, I think it is. One of the good things about a M$ os is that the average joe can do some things pretty easily right out of the box. The simple (although ugly) GUI coupled with Office lets users be productive doing many common tasks without a lot of hassle (crashes aside). Nobody has done it better. There is no reason though, that common tasks can't be made easier under linux without sacrificing its power and flexibility. Look at the SGI desktop combined with its online help, and man pages and intergrated applications. These machines are great. Everytime I go to do something on the O2, I get an education, and I get things done fast, and in a pretty flexible manner. This is because underneath their GUI is a pretty well laid out Unix. Things like rlogin and remote display, and multimedia are more or less transparent. They have put in nice GUI tools for most common tasks, but you can go in and modify things, and in many cases the GUI still works. Better, it will tell you when it cannot (most times.) In many ways that is what we should shoot for. This time it is being done on common hardware with open standards, and protocols that allow for a much more powerful computing experience.
I can't wait for this personally. Makes all the long range plans of M$ look pale in comparison.
Linux has that same appeal. When I try something new, I hit the net, then the HOW-TO pages, and again I am rewarded with lots of info, and the sense that the machine is being used the right way. I can look at command history, and note what I do, or script it for later. Very cool, and it can be done as easily from any machine around that is networked. Most of the good pieces are there, we just have not honed them long enough, but that will come.
The average joe needs to be able to compute, and learn what ever they need/want to. If clear GUI tools are done right, then they will allow the rest of us to get in there and make the machine do what we want, how we want it done, from where ever we need to.
Saw the new logo in use today
on
SGI Name Change
·
· Score: 1
Just got the latest issue of Game Developer. Inside are some more of the "It's Alive!" ads that SGI is running. The new logo is indeed the one mentioned before in the quickies.
Umm.. reverse engineering and disassembly?
on
Open Source Windows
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, It probably would. I still think it would be fun though.
Understanding assembly output is hard, but maybe we could break it into small chunks. If 1000 of us each took a couple of hours to look our section over, and comment it, we would have something. Repeat this process until we get to a pretty high level understanding of what was done, without really looking at their source.
Wait a minute... I agree with you that the thing will be slow, but not everyone needs two boxes. Even though there are machines that will do what vmware does for the same price, there are upgrades, management, xtra monitors, loss of flexibility... The list goes on. For many, a product such as this will enable them to employ Linux while communicating with the rest of the world during the transition period (hehe:-j)
Here is another idea for those who could have two boxes. Utilize the second using the VNC viewer client software. That way they could just put the windows box in a corner and forget about it!
Ok I'll bite. Each side needs to give a little. We can't have everything be OSS. Those things that are built upon, and that everyone is going to need (like OS, dev. tools, system utilities, graphics, common applications, and devices) should be as open as possible. These are the areas that need the stability and planning that happen best using OSS methodology. Basic standards need to be set just like they have on the internet today. The RFC mechanisim is great. Those affected can comment and brainstorm, and when it is over things can get done knowing that most of the show-stoppers have been worked out.
We also cannot have everything owned or patented by someone. This will force new solutions to new problems, and stifle innovation in general. Basically some entity gets a majority share, and we are forced to deal with their view of things.
Right now NT has a lot of momentum going for it because their is an inter-application data communication model there. (I am aware of its many faults, but it is currently working none the less.) Lots of good software is being mangled to fit this model because no-one can/has? agree(d?) on any other. People who just use a computer need this. They don't need the consulting, downtime, fees, and upgrades packaged along with it.
Linux also has a lot to offer. Good price performance, and customization, and support are just a few of the things that I am happy to see. People who build computing solutions will enjoy the fact that it can be administered easily and remotely, and that it is fast, and that it does not crash often. Currently the time gained here for users is lost though because the applications, and in particular the communication model between them has not yet developed into something robust enough to build upon.
I work for a reseller, and yes we do sell pretty expensive software, and services to make sure that the customer gets the return they are looking for. We have done well so far. In every catagory of software we deal with, I am seeing a trend toward lower cost software, that is easy to use, and that does not require much administration. As a consequence, the market is trading advanced capability for intergration, and standardization. (If I can't spell, please deal with it as it is late.... ) This is in general what people want. They really don't care how it gets done, as long as it does not break the bank, and it works reliably.
Again I am talking about users, not us. They are the people who use the tool because it enables them to perform their job in a manner that is both comfortable, and effective. Learning about an OS does not interest a lot of them. We on the other hand have an interest in how things are built because we are builders. It is us who have to set things up, and in general, keep them in motion, and drive across town to fix a PC!:-)
Why can't people make money by funding the infrastructure of computing, while selling their applications? They can keep those closed as long as they have value. Companies that build upon a stable foundation will get the most return on their development investment, because they can focus on coding their ideas into things people can use, and their customers will be able to use their applications together to get their tasks done. If they are utilizing a particular piece of open code to build upon, and they need more out of it, it should be done OSS style. That way others work is not broken.
The way I see it, the longer an application exists, the more refined it gets. Pretty soon it's overall value goes down because its market gets saturated. Basic computing tools as mentioned above are logical canidates for OSS because there is little to differentate them. Pretty hard to make a mint on a text editor, or perhaps a compression tool. Even a new one. When the existing cash cow apps begin to lose their value, then it is time to start building new ones rather than milking the old ones.
If things are done this way, then eager companies can get the differentiation they need to compete, life gets easier for the sys administrators, and the hardware people get to compete on more levels than just cost.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with this. I have been working with computers since an early age. Many have forgotten what well optimized code is. Many of their "features" are marketing driven, and not user driven. The shoddy archetuture (ok so I cant spell this morning) of their software reflects this. M$ does not have a lot of my respect due to their almost total lack of regard for those who have come before and built the technology upon which they base their products. It all comes down to the fact that they have built a business model that requires that they own everything, and the consequences of this are beginning to become apparent to the average joe user. I can't help but wonder what would have been if they contributed to things rather than destroyed them.
All I was really saying is that their core ideals have created something that makes easy stuff easy, but anything else is torture. Given that the Linux community is beginning to build these things again, we should be able to look at what they have done, and filter out those things that drive the not-so-average user nuts.
Yeah, I think it is. One of the good things about a M$ os is that the average joe can do some things pretty easily right out of the box. The simple (although ugly) GUI coupled with Office lets users be productive doing many common tasks without a lot of hassle (crashes aside). Nobody has done it better. There is no reason though, that common tasks can't be made easier under linux without sacrificing its power and flexibility. Look at the SGI desktop combined with its online help, and man pages and intergrated applications. These machines are great. Everytime I go to do something on the O2, I get an education, and I get things done fast, and in a pretty flexible manner. This is because underneath their GUI is a pretty well laid out Unix. Things like rlogin and remote display, and multimedia are more or less transparent. They have put in nice GUI tools for most common tasks, but you can go in and modify things, and in many cases the GUI still works. Better, it will tell you when it cannot (most times.) In many ways that is what we should shoot for. This time it is being done on common hardware with open standards, and protocols that allow for a much more powerful computing experience.
I can't wait for this personally. Makes all the long range plans of M$ look pale in comparison.
Linux has that same appeal. When I try something new, I hit the net, then the HOW-TO pages, and again I am rewarded with lots of info, and the sense that the machine is being used the right way. I can look at command history, and note what I do, or script it for later. Very cool, and it can be done as easily from any machine around that is networked. Most of the good pieces are there, we just have not honed them long enough, but that will come.
The average joe needs to be able to compute, and learn what ever they need/want to. If clear GUI tools are done right, then they will allow the rest of us to get in there and make the machine do what we want, how we want it done, from where ever we need to.
Just got the latest issue of Game Developer. Inside are some more of the "It's Alive!" ads that SGI is running. The new logo is indeed the one mentioned before in the quickies.
Yeah, It probably would. I still think it would be fun though.
Understanding assembly output is hard, but maybe we could break it into small chunks. If 1000 of us each took a couple of hours to look our section over, and comment it, we would have something. Repeat this process until we get to a pretty high level understanding of what was done, without really looking at their source.
With the intense look on the technicians face, and the stark lighting one could just as easily make a new caption....
First Contact! Mankind learns just what he is from glowing alien sphere!
Wait a minute... I agree with you that the thing will be slow, but not everyone needs two boxes. Even though there are machines that will do what vmware does for the same price, there are upgrades, management, xtra monitors, loss of flexibility... The list goes on. For many, a product such as this will enable them to employ Linux while communicating with the rest of the world during the transition period (hehe :-j)
Here is another idea for those who could have two boxes. Utilize the second using the VNC viewer client software. That way they could just put the windows box in a corner and forget about it!
Ok I'll bite. Each side needs to give a little. We can't have everything be OSS. Those things that are built upon, and that everyone is going to need (like OS, dev. tools, system utilities, graphics, common applications, and devices) should be as open as possible. These are the areas that need the stability and planning that happen best using OSS methodology. Basic standards need to be set just like they have on the internet today. The RFC mechanisim is great. Those affected can comment and brainstorm, and when it is over things can get done knowing that most of the show-stoppers have been worked out.
:-)
We also cannot have everything owned or patented by someone. This will force new solutions to new problems, and stifle innovation in general. Basically some entity gets a majority share, and we are forced to deal with their view of things.
Right now NT has a lot of momentum going for it because their is an inter-application data communication model there. (I am aware of its many faults, but it is currently working none the less.) Lots of good software is being mangled to fit this model because no-one can/has? agree(d?) on any other. People who just use a computer need this. They don't need the consulting, downtime, fees, and upgrades packaged along with it.
Linux also has a lot to offer. Good price performance, and customization, and support are just a few of the things that I am happy to see. People who build computing solutions will enjoy the fact that it can be administered easily and remotely, and that it is fast, and that it does not crash often. Currently the time gained here for users is lost though because the applications, and in particular the communication model between them has not yet developed into something robust enough to build upon.
I work for a reseller, and yes we do sell pretty expensive software, and services to make sure that the customer gets the return they are looking for. We have done well so far. In every catagory of software we deal with, I am seeing a trend toward lower cost software, that is easy to use, and that does not require much administration. As a consequence, the market is trading advanced capability for intergration, and standardization. (If I can't spell, please deal with it as it is late.... ) This is in general what people want. They really don't care how it gets done, as long as it does not break the bank, and it works reliably.
Again I am talking about users, not us. They are the people who use the tool because it enables them to perform their job in a manner that is both comfortable, and effective. Learning about an OS does not interest a lot of them. We on the other hand have an interest in how things are built because we are builders. It is us who have to set things up, and in general, keep them in motion, and drive across town to fix a PC!
Why can't people make money by funding the infrastructure of computing, while selling their applications? They can keep those closed as long as they have value. Companies that build upon a stable foundation will get the most return on their development investment, because they can focus on coding their ideas into things people can use, and their customers will be able to use their applications together to get their tasks done. If they are utilizing a particular piece of open code to build upon, and they need more out of it, it should be done OSS style. That way others work is not broken.
The way I see it, the longer an application exists, the more refined it gets. Pretty soon it's overall value goes down because its market gets saturated. Basic computing tools as mentioned above are logical canidates for OSS because there is little to differentate them. Pretty hard to make a mint on a text editor, or perhaps a compression tool. Even a new one. When the existing cash cow apps begin to lose their value, then it is time to start building new ones rather than milking the old ones.
If things are done this way, then eager companies can get the differentiation they need to compete, life gets easier for the sys administrators, and the hardware people get to compete on more levels than just cost.
Later,