Maybe in the long term, but in the short term (5 years?) there is plenty of room for 25/50GB optical storage for HD video. I don't mind torrenting and storing some SD TV shows now and then, but I'm certainly not going to want to waste my internet bandwidth (and harddrive storage) downloading high quality feature length HD video from the internet on a regular basis. I don't think the internet (or individual ISPs) could even handle that on a large scale.
My experience with technically brilliant people is quite the opposite. Every single one that I have met personally, without exception, has been humble, easy going, and perhaps somewhat withdrawn and shy. That's not to say that they incapable of heated discussions, but they tend to be emotionally stable. The noisy ones... the guys that like to talk shit are usually all talk. There are some examples online (maybe Zed is one?) of the shit talking genius, but my experience is that it is the exception that proves the rule.
Anyway, It seems clear from Zed's work history (as he describes it anyway) that SOMEONE was able to get some good work out of him and keep his attitude in check at some point. So I guess it is possible, but you never know. He could have been more stable back then and has only more recently gone over the edge. His recent shenanigan's make him pretty high risk to even the most confident and competent manager. Zed's gone well beyond "abrasive" or "emotionally unstable." Even a great manager would be wise to take a pass on such a candidate. If you happen to find yourself with such a person on a team, sure, make the best of it. But to knowly take on such a explosive element is just not smart when it is (again, in my experience) the exception.
Most complaints about Rails have to do with people, and less with the code itself. Rails isn't perfect, but it isn't trash, either. It's the assholes who talk about it like it's perfect that are the problem. Rails is doing well for a young framework.
Considering that most Rails programmers seem to be coming from PHP, it is understandable that they might get a little overexcited.
Oddly, I'm exploring Python and Django now after my own long detour through Rails, without quite accomplishing anything on my own part other than cementing an exasperation with PHP (version 4 in particular). Running that Instiki instance is part of what's lessened the appeal of Rails. I don't know how much of that can be blamed on Instiki itself, but I'm pretty sure the answer is "not all of it." But I digress.
Instiki is just a terrible example of a Rails application. Last time I checked (a few months ago) it was still targeted for like Rails 0.11 or something incredibly out of date like that.
If Instiki was your primary experience with Rails, I would encourage you to look at something else. Maybe take a look at Beast, http://beast.caboo.se/ That is an example of a well coded Rails application.
SL wouldn't exist if that were not the case. It's like the Internet, before commercial use was allowed, it was a tiny useless thing that professors used to flame each other over. If you take the commercial use out of SL it would be gone in 3 months.
If you're running XP with no service packs in 2008 you're going to have a lot bigger problems than running apps from a developer who doesn't know how to target his Win32 applications for maximum compatibility.
I find that argument amusing. That is like saying, "This isn't a problem with Windows because the insane amount of issues have forced you to update!" -- Yet apparently Linux doesn't quite give you enough issues to force you to update -- but because it isn't perfect, it's bad.
I'm not saying Linux is "bad." I like Linux. I still use it and even prefer it to Windows by a long shot. I'm just saying Linux has poor backwards and forward binary/package compatibility. And it is true. A Linux distribution from 2001 is all but useless without quite a bit of work (read: compiling stuff from source) unless it is sitting in some closet doing some fixed task that doesn't require recent software. Whereas Windows 2000, for example, is still quite useful as a general desktop OS. It can run the majority of Windows software out there today. Not that I, personally, would want to use it in such a capacity.. I'm just saying if you wanted to it would be no problem.
When users encounter runtime errors and odd crashes, they don't suspect it is because their Windows system is out of date. I know from hours of debugging issues with users.
So you update them. Big deal. Imagine if it was the other way around and you were helping end users with Linux and you found they were having lots of problems because they were running an old distribution. How frustrating woudl it be to have to upgrade their entire system, applications and all, just to fix some minor incompatability with a particular application? Suddenly applying a service pack on Windows seems pretty straight forward, doesn't it?
Linux users, on the other hand, often can't run the same package on different versions of the same distribution spanning more than a couple years.
I honestly couldn't recall ever needing to. Being a programmer though, I am aware of issues between using libraries compiled against a specific libc while the programs being compiled against another causing a issue. But, since you are doing something that is considered unsupported, of course it's not going to be easy - the easy work around would be to just grab the package and requirements and have the paths setup in such a way that it will rely on the libraries you downloaded instead of on the system.
And that is exactly what I'd be afraid of if Linux ever became mainstream on the desktop. Vendors would resort to bloating each application with a redundant set of libraries. Think of the security implications. You coudl no longer fix a system-wide vulnerability by patching a library. You'd have to ensure that each individual application vendor that used the vulnerable library provided their own patch.
I can guarantee you that Linux ever became mainstream on the desktop, users would not be upgrading their distribution every time a new version was released. They would expect to be able to do what you consider to be "unsupported." Like they can on Windows.
As I've said, I've never had a problem with Linux software that was using things like the LSB. I am not even aware of a compatibility issue ever occuring.
Well sure, if you limit the app set to LSB compliant ones, but what apps are LSB compliant? How inclusive is the LSB? Can you make a GNOME application, for example, that is LSB compliant and will install (binary, not source) on most any Linux system? What package format would you use?
My experience with Linux distributions (mainly Debian based) is that you are more or less stuck with whatever applications were available when the distribution was "frozen." Unless you are willing to compile stuff from source or get a backport of a package from the "unstable" release of the dist.
The fact that this (largely nontechnical) issue is his first point disheartens me and makes me wary of ever working with Zed no matter how brilliant he is.
My sentiments exactly. He blames Ruby on Rails for ruining his career. I wonder if maybe it was the notoriety Zed gained by doing Rails related work that led to his career decline. It let people see what a "character" he can be. I'd certainly never heard of him before getting into Rails. If you read the documentation for his projects you can see that it is rather... unprofessional. He laces just about everything he writes with profanity. Not nearly as bad as this rant, but not exactly professional either.
I almost feel bad for him that this senseless rant made it to Slashdot. Who's going to hire him now?
I was specifically talking about Eve Online, not SL. Scamming on SL is definitely wrong. Though I think the more fundamental problem is not the scammers, but the fact that game money is tied to real money in SL. That is just asking for trouble.
The fact remains that installing major packages targetted for one distribution on another distribution can be tricky at best. Hell, even trying to run packages on an older version of the SAME distribution is often hit and miss.
The question is, why would you do that when targeting say, the older version of the distribution, is adequate for most applications?
See what i changed there. Nice!
I know you thought that was clever when you wrote it, but it doesn't work in reality. Linux is such a fast moving target that aiming for an older version of a distribution would significantly impact the user experience. I, as a user, don't want to run apps on a modern distribution that are built against GTK 1.2, for example. Can you imagine if you had this nice shiny new GNOME 2.20 desktop and all your favorite apps were still using GTK 1.2 for compatibility?
And even if it was a simple matter of targeting an older version of a distribution, you would still have to deal with the dozen other distributions and their various packaging methods, file locations, and specific library versions.
Try again.
If you're running a Linux distribution from 2001 with no service packs in 2008 you're going to have a lot bigger problems than running apps from a developer who doesn't know how to target his Linux applications for maximum compatibility.
Again, excellent points. Are you a lawyer? You argue both sides with excellent acumen.
Oh please. You're trying to suggest that the difference between a Linux distribution from 2001 and a Linux distribution today is comparable to the difference between Windows XP and WIndows XP SP2. Not a chance.
What most commercial vendors end up doing is one of 3 things:
1. Statically link binaries
2. Include all the dependencies for the program
3. Build and test packages for all recent versions of all major Windows versions and service packs (often leaving users of minor HotFixes or special editions (MCE) to fend for themselves)
It woudl be awesome if all developers could produce unique builds for every major release of your favorite OS, but it just ain't going to happen. I've been running OS X Leopard since it came out and I don't think I'm running a single application that is targeted specifically for Leopard aside from the apps that came with it. The only reason Linux is even usable when you do a major upgrade is because nearly all the apps are upgraded at the same time.
Nice try, but you're comparing the difference between Windows with and without patches to the difference between linux distributions. And that is just stupid.
Note: I especially like this part of your argument, "The only reason Linux is even usable when you do a major upgrade is because nearly all the apps are upgraded at the same time." That is a great point that should really be emphasized when talking to your Mac or Windows using friends.
I would, but the smart ones would say, "Wait a minute, you're telling me that you can't easily install third party software that doesn't come with your distribution. And if you want to get recent software that hasn't been backported to your distribution, you have to upgrade everything all at once? That's stupid."
Sorry, but having every single one of your applications linked in a complex web of dependencies really isn't a selling point for your average Windows or Mac user. As a relatively recent Linux => OS X desktop convert, I can honestly say that I prefer being able to simply drop an application in/Applications and have it just work. And if I want to upgrade said application, I just copy over it.
You go on to argue that it is unsustainable because there are just to
I simply don't consider a crime (in the real world) to scam someone out of fake money in a game that aims to similate a large universe with a full economy and social structure. Just like there are players who will "Pod" you, there are those who will scam you. Just the way the game works. It creates a great atmosphere and drama, IMO. The Eve scams that I recall were particularly entertaining because they were so elaborate.
That said, I'm all for IN GAME solutions to the problems like having scammers arrested or have bounties on their heads or something, but there's no need to take it to RL and make it a legal issue.
I can build applications against the Windows 2003 SP1 platform SDK and they certainly will not work correctly on Windows XP SP2 (Having done this myself, runtime errors popping up randomly are most common to happen in such cases).
The question is, why would you do that when targeting say, Win2k, is adequate for most applications?
If I build applications against the latest Windows XP SP2 platform SDK. You will also find that running them on Windows XP (no service packs - a 2001 OS) will likely cause these applications to crash (if they don't crash while starting up, they will definitely crash when you minimize the application).
If you're running XP with no service packs in 2008 you're going to have a lot bigger problems than running apps from a developer who doesn't know how to target his Win32 applications for maximum compatibility.
To put it simply, these issues exist on Windows on too - I should know since I have had a tonne of issues with this on most operating systems.
And yet the end users rarely sees the issue on Windows. Linux users, on the other hand, often can't run the same package on different versions of the same distribution spanning more than a couple years. Look, I'm no Windows fan. In fact, I dread using the OS for anything more than playing games, but it does have one thing going for it and that is decent backward and forward application compatibility.
At the end of the day, this really depends on how the distributions decide to package their content. There are some like Slackware which make binaries that appear to 'run anywhere'.
I haven't used Slackware since around 1996 so i can't really confirm this, but the fact that so many things depend on your distribution only goes to prove my point.
As for OS X... Nevermind the architecture change and the Rosetta bugs with big endian and little endian. I can't get quite a few applications from 10.2 working at all on PPC versions of 10.4 or 10.5.
Well, least you can run apps for PPC on x86 at all. Windows and Linux users are still struggling with 32 -> 64bit on the SAME architecture.
As for OS X versions and backward/forward compatability... 10.3 is pretty much the minimum that you need these days. While not as good as Windows, it is better than the Linux distribution mess.
Running packages that were built for another specific distribution is in my opinion, a bad idea for any operating system. Linux isn't unique to this.
I'll assume you're using the term "distribution" lightly and are including major versions of an OS such as OS X 10.4 vs. 10.3.
In which case I can only say that you often have little choice. It woudl be awesome if all developers could produce unique builds for every major release of your favorite OS, but it just ain't going to happen. I've been running OS X Leopard since it came out and I don't think I'm running a single application that is targeted specifically for Leopard aside from the apps that came with it. The only reason Linux is even usable when you do a major upgrade is because nearly all the apps are upgraded at the same time. But this isn't very sustainable. At some point there's just going to be too much software out there to include (and test) in the with OS and still maintain a reasonable release schedule. And using commercial software is still a problem.
Did you already try to run some old Windows 3.1 softwares on Windows XP or Vista ? Often, Windows 98 applications don't run under Windows 2000 or XP.
Oh come on! Windows 3.1 is from like 1992!
So, unless you need some specific software or plan to use the computer for gaming, Linux is going to become a better choice than Windows... Truly PnP !!!
I have plenty of applications that don't run on OS X from older versions of OS X. Windows Vista has issues running some older Windows programs. As for Linux... I can't think of a time EVER when a LSB program didn't work.
Considering that LSB only dates back to 2001 and only covers a relatively small subset of total system functionality, your anecdotal experience is less than impressive. What most commercial vendors end up doing is one of 3 things:
1) Statically link binaries 2) Include all the dependencies for the program 3) Build and test packages for all recent versions of all major distributions (often leaving users of minor distributions to fend for themselves)
The fact remains that installing major packages targetted for one distribution on another distribution can be tricky at best. Hell, even trying to run packages on an older version of the SAME distribution is often hit and miss.
And God forbid you're running a Linux distribution from 2001 (as opposed to running an app from 2001). In which case you're going to be compiling just about everything (and dependencies) from source. There's almost no forward compatibility in Linux distributions. Fortunately, it is free to upgrade, but still...
We have Parallels for Mac OS X, which seems to be quite capable at running Windows programs at a decent speed, with good compatibility. What do we have on Linux? Wine? Crossover Office?
There's VMware for Linux, which operates more or less the same as Parallels. So really, OS X users are not much better off than Linux users when it comes to WIndows apps. What OS X DOES have is MS Office and high end professional apps such as the Adobe suite.
Apple has the best of both worlds on their platform -
The only two worlds Apple has the best of is Unix and NeXTStep. When it comes to Windows-only apps you're not much better off as an OS X user than a Linux user. Though Parallel "Coherence" mode is kinda neat.
- why can't, say, Canonical, or (dare I mention them) Novell? They had a few hundred million thrown at them by Microsoft, supposedly to increase interoperability with Windows and Linux...where are the results?
What it comes down to is that there is no substitute for good native apps. Windows "compatibility" can be an acceptable kludge for specific applications, but native applications are necessary to sustain any potential challenger to Windows dominance in the long run.
This is an impossible goal. When you're reusing your old stuff, you aren't innovating to create new stuff, and when you are innovating to create new stuff, you aren't reusing the old. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
Well, I'm thinking along the lines of the airline industry. Planes stay in production for decades. They don't have to build a new one for each trip. If space exploration were more like that, we'd see more exploration. We're just far too early into it to see thiat kind of progress.
Also, I assume they have a patent on this process so we're not going to see any competition. At best we'll see them license the tech out to others... but probably with some kind of non-compete clause. Like the the licensee can't charge less for the panels or some dumb crap like that.
I'm frustrated that the pace of space exploration is so slow. . By now we should have an orbiter around every planet and major moon in this system, and the cost of doing so would be tiny in comparison to the data gathered.
That's some pretty valuable data!
It is common for people who are not intimately involved in the processes involved in achieving something to fail to appreciate the time/work/energy that goes into it. Especially in this day an age when when so much is done for us (by computers or other people
Also, keep in mind that space exploration is, for the most part, a series of "one off" experiments. You shouldn't expect any serious space exploration until we can get to the point where we have more reusable equipment and methods. We had this to some degree with the space shuttle, but look how quickly that became obsolete. Now it all has to be designed from scratch.
Wait a minute. This is totally backwards. Being played on the radio is basically advertising. The record companies should be paying radio stations to get artists heard. And the bigger the hit, the more they pay to keep it playing. Or something like that.
Then again, it would suck for indie labels that might not be able to afford to pay to broadcast. And you'd end with an even smaller subset of music being played on the radio.
How about a compromise. Record labels admit that radio play is free advertising. And Radio stations continue to get revenue from advertsing.
I've always found newspapers very difficult to read anyway. I mean, what genius thought it was a good idea to make the size of a page several square feet? The LEAST they coudl do is adopt the tabloid style. The Chicago Sun Times does it, but unfortunately it also happens to be the most dumbed down paper... usually putting sports on the front page or some dumb shit like that.
Overall, I don't really have any problem with the bias or quality of the news in papers. It is just that the format sucks. And I agree, the ads re also ridiculous. I can filter out all the crap with electronic news, thank god. Though I still like print magazines such as the Economist. That one in particular seems to be relatively light on the ads. Plenty of text.
What major Metro Area has only a single daily newpaper? I know Chicago has at least two major ones. The Sun Times and the Tribune. And many minor publications catering to various niches. You can also usually get the New York Times anywhere in the US as well as USA Today, IIRC. The real problem is not so much lack of selection in papers, it is that they get most of their content from the same source: Associated Press.
I read it. Sorry. I was just thinking in terms of having something that is very portable. I don't think a docking station like thing would cut it. I mean, presumably if you're in a position to dock your computer, you'd don't particularly care how long it takes to charge. It is when you're on the road and only have minimal access to power that you want to get a quick charge.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I am suggesting there not be some common folder for OS related files.
Completely restructure the OS files so you don't have a single folder (C:\Windows)... That'd be where I got the idea.
Then you misunderstood. You'd still have a common folder for core OS related files. In OS X it is/System. But there'd also be other folders for files that are kinda OS and kinda not. You've already agreed that there is a lot in C:\Windows that shouldn't be. Where should they go? All those semi-OS related files that come on a Windows CD that are not the OS "proper" (however you choose to define it) have to go somewhere, don't they? Certainly C:\Programs Files isn't necessarily appropriate for it all.
Agreed that it needs to be organized better than it is, but I've NEVER said that it doesn't. I'm saying your suggestion to abolish c:\windows altogether is stupid.
I didn't say abolish C:\Windows. I said it needs to have a complete overhaul and many of the files that are in there now should not be in there.
The "system" I mean is that everything part of the OS goes in C:\Windows.
Unfortunately the distinction between the OS and the rest of system is not so clear cut. You're extremely naive if you think it is.
I think that it needs to be organized better, but C:\Windows still needs to be the root of that hierarchy. It doesn't make any damned sense to not have a common parent folder for OS elements.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I am suggesting there not be some common folder for OS related files. The problem lies in determining what exactly what the "OS" is. Some people would go so far as to say that it is just the kernel. Some might say roughly everything that is included on the OS install CD. I think you're making the same mistake that Microsoft did years ago in thinking you can clearly define what is the OS and what isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe in the long term, but in the short term (5 years?) there is plenty of room for 25/50GB optical storage for HD video. I don't mind torrenting and storing some SD TV shows now and then, but I'm certainly not going to want to waste my internet bandwidth (and harddrive storage) downloading high quality feature length HD video from the internet on a regular basis. I don't think the internet (or individual ISPs) could even handle that on a large scale.
My experience with technically brilliant people is quite the opposite. Every single one that I have met personally, without exception, has been humble, easy going, and perhaps somewhat withdrawn and shy. That's not to say that they incapable of heated discussions, but they tend to be emotionally stable. The noisy ones... the guys that like to talk shit are usually all talk. There are some examples online (maybe Zed is one?) of the shit talking genius, but my experience is that it is the exception that proves the rule.
Anyway, It seems clear from Zed's work history (as he describes it anyway) that SOMEONE was able to get some good work out of him and keep his attitude in check at some point. So I guess it is possible, but you never know. He could have been more stable back then and has only more recently gone over the edge. His recent shenanigan's make him pretty high risk to even the most confident and competent manager. Zed's gone well beyond "abrasive" or "emotionally unstable." Even a great manager would be wise to take a pass on such a candidate. If you happen to find yourself with such a person on a team, sure, make the best of it. But to knowly take on such a explosive element is just not smart when it is (again, in my experience) the exception.
-matthew
Considering that most Rails programmers seem to be coming from PHP, it is understandable that they might get a little overexcited.
Instiki is just a terrible example of a Rails application. Last time I checked (a few months ago) it was still targeted for like Rails 0.11 or something incredibly out of date like that.
If Instiki was your primary experience with Rails, I would encourage you to look at something else. Maybe take a look at Beast, http://beast.caboo.se/ That is an example of a well coded Rails application.
-matthew
And this would be a problem how?
I'm not saying Linux is "bad." I like Linux. I still use it and even prefer it to Windows by a long shot. I'm just saying Linux has poor backwards and forward binary/package compatibility. And it is true. A Linux distribution from 2001 is all but useless without quite a bit of work (read: compiling stuff from source) unless it is sitting in some closet doing some fixed task that doesn't require recent software. Whereas Windows 2000, for example, is still quite useful as a general desktop OS. It can run the majority of Windows software out there today. Not that I, personally, would want to use it in such a capacity.. I'm just saying if you wanted to it would be no problem.
So you update them. Big deal. Imagine if it was the other way around and you were helping end users with Linux and you found they were having lots of problems because they were running an old distribution. How frustrating woudl it be to have to upgrade their entire system, applications and all, just to fix some minor incompatability with a particular application? Suddenly applying a service pack on Windows seems pretty straight forward, doesn't it?
And that is exactly what I'd be afraid of if Linux ever became mainstream on the desktop. Vendors would resort to bloating each application with a redundant set of libraries. Think of the security implications. You coudl no longer fix a system-wide vulnerability by patching a library. You'd have to ensure that each individual application vendor that used the vulnerable library provided their own patch.
I can guarantee you that Linux ever became mainstream on the desktop, users would not be upgrading their distribution every time a new version was released. They would expect to be able to do what you consider to be "unsupported." Like they can on Windows.
Well sure, if you limit the app set to LSB compliant ones, but what apps are LSB compliant? How inclusive is the LSB? Can you make a GNOME application, for example, that is LSB compliant and will install (binary, not source) on most any Linux system? What package format would you use?
My experience with Linux distributions (mainly Debian based) is that you are more or less stuck with whatever applications were available when the distribution was "frozen." Unless you are willing to compile stuff from source or get a backport of a package from the "unstable" release of the dist.
My sentiments exactly. He blames Ruby on Rails for ruining his career. I wonder if maybe it was the notoriety Zed gained by doing Rails related work that led to his career decline. It let people see what a "character" he can be. I'd certainly never heard of him before getting into Rails. If you read the documentation for his projects you can see that it is rather... unprofessional. He laces just about everything he writes with profanity. Not nearly as bad as this rant, but not exactly professional either.
I almost feel bad for him that this senseless rant made it to Slashdot. Who's going to hire him now?
-matthew
Wow, I knew Zed was an interesting character, but this is just crazy. Good riddance.
I was specifically talking about Eve Online, not SL. Scamming on SL is definitely wrong. Though I think the more fundamental problem is not the scammers, but the fact that game money is tied to real money in SL. That is just asking for trouble.
-matthew
I know you thought that was clever when you wrote it, but it doesn't work in reality. Linux is such a fast moving target that aiming for an older version of a distribution would significantly impact the user experience. I, as a user, don't want to run apps on a modern distribution that are built against GTK 1.2, for example. Can you imagine if you had this nice shiny new GNOME 2.20 desktop and all your favorite apps were still using GTK 1.2 for compatibility?
And even if it was a simple matter of targeting an older version of a distribution, you would still have to deal with the dozen other distributions and their various packaging methods, file locations, and specific library versions.
Try again.
Oh please. You're trying to suggest that the difference between a Linux distribution from 2001 and a Linux distribution today is comparable to the difference between Windows XP and WIndows XP SP2. Not a chance.
Nice try, but you're comparing the difference between Windows with and without patches to the difference between linux distributions. And that is just stupid.
I would, but the smart ones would say, "Wait a minute, you're telling me that you can't easily install third party software that doesn't come with your distribution. And if you want to get recent software that hasn't been backported to your distribution, you have to upgrade everything all at once? That's stupid."
/Applications and have it just work. And if I want to upgrade said application, I just copy over it.
Sorry, but having every single one of your applications linked in a complex web of dependencies really isn't a selling point for your average Windows or Mac user. As a relatively recent Linux => OS X desktop convert, I can honestly say that I prefer being able to simply drop an application in
I simply don't consider a crime (in the real world) to scam someone out of fake money in a game that aims to similate a large universe with a full economy and social structure. Just like there are players who will "Pod" you, there are those who will scam you. Just the way the game works. It creates a great atmosphere and drama, IMO. The Eve scams that I recall were particularly entertaining because they were so elaborate.
That said, I'm all for IN GAME solutions to the problems like having scammers arrested or have bounties on their heads or something, but there's no need to take it to RL and make it a legal issue.
-matthew
The question is, why would you do that when targeting say, Win2k, is adequate for most applications?
If you're running XP with no service packs in 2008 you're going to have a lot bigger problems than running apps from a developer who doesn't know how to target his Win32 applications for maximum compatibility.
And yet the end users rarely sees the issue on Windows. Linux users, on the other hand, often can't run the same package on different versions of the same distribution spanning more than a couple years. Look, I'm no Windows fan. In fact, I dread using the OS for anything more than playing games, but it does have one thing going for it and that is decent backward and forward application compatibility.
I haven't used Slackware since around 1996 so i can't really confirm this, but the fact that so many things depend on your distribution only goes to prove my point.
Well, least you can run apps for PPC on x86 at all. Windows and Linux users are still struggling with 32 -> 64bit on the SAME architecture.
As for OS X versions and backward/forward compatability... 10.3 is pretty much the minimum that you need these days. While not as good as Windows, it is better than the Linux distribution mess.
I'll assume you're using the term "distribution" lightly and are including major versions of an OS such as OS X 10.4 vs. 10.3.
In which case I can only say that you often have little choice. It woudl be awesome if all developers could produce unique builds for every major release of your favorite OS, but it just ain't going to happen. I've been running OS X Leopard since it came out and I don't think I'm running a single application that is targeted specifically for Leopard aside from the apps that came with it. The only reason Linux is even usable when you do a major upgrade is because nearly all the apps are upgraded at the same time. But this isn't very sustainable. At some point there's just going to be too much software out there to include (and test) in the with OS and still maintain a reasonable release schedule. And using commercial software is still a problem.
-matthew
Oh come on! Windows 3.1 is from like 1992!
If you consider building from source PnP...
-matthew
Considering that LSB only dates back to 2001 and only covers a relatively small subset of total system functionality, your anecdotal experience is less than impressive. What most commercial vendors end up doing is one of 3 things:
1) Statically link binaries
2) Include all the dependencies for the program
3) Build and test packages for all recent versions of all major distributions (often leaving users of minor distributions to fend for themselves)
The fact remains that installing major packages targetted for one distribution on another distribution can be tricky at best. Hell, even trying to run packages on an older version of the SAME distribution is often hit and miss.
And God forbid you're running a Linux distribution from 2001 (as opposed to running an app from 2001). In which case you're going to be compiling just about everything (and dependencies) from source. There's almost no forward compatibility in Linux distributions. Fortunately, it is free to upgrade, but still...
-matthew
There's VMware for Linux, which operates more or less the same as Parallels. So really, OS X users are not much better off than Linux users when it comes to WIndows apps. What OS X DOES have is MS Office and high end professional apps such as the Adobe suite.
The only two worlds Apple has the best of is Unix and NeXTStep. When it comes to Windows-only apps you're not much better off as an OS X user than a Linux user. Though Parallel "Coherence" mode is kinda neat.
What it comes down to is that there is no substitute for good native apps. Windows "compatibility" can be an acceptable kludge for specific applications, but native applications are necessary to sustain any potential challenger to Windows dominance in the long run.
-matthew
Well, I'm thinking along the lines of the airline industry. Planes stay in production for decades. They don't have to build a new one for each trip. If space exploration were more like that, we'd see more exploration. We're just far too early into it to see thiat kind of progress.
-matthew
I read that they were printing on aluminum. So it sounds like it would be pretty rigid... and even usable as shingles.
Also, I assume they have a patent on this process so we're not going to see any competition. At best we'll see them license the tech out to others... but probably with some kind of non-compete clause. Like the the licensee can't charge less for the panels or some dumb crap like that.
That's some pretty valuable data!
It is common for people who are not intimately involved in the processes involved in achieving something to fail to appreciate the time/work/energy that goes into it. Especially in this day an age when when so much is done for us (by computers or other people
Also, keep in mind that space exploration is, for the most part, a series of "one off" experiments. You shouldn't expect any serious space exploration until we can get to the point where we have more reusable equipment and methods. We had this to some degree with the space shuttle, but look how quickly that became obsolete. Now it all has to be designed from scratch.
Wait a minute. This is totally backwards. Being played on the radio is basically advertising. The record companies should be paying radio stations to get artists heard. And the bigger the hit, the more they pay to keep it playing. Or something like that.
Then again, it would suck for indie labels that might not be able to afford to pay to broadcast. And you'd end with an even smaller subset of music being played on the radio.
How about a compromise. Record labels admit that radio play is free advertising. And Radio stations continue to get revenue from advertsing.
-matthew
I've always found newspapers very difficult to read anyway. I mean, what genius thought it was a good idea to make the size of a page several square feet? The LEAST they coudl do is adopt the tabloid style. The Chicago Sun Times does it, but unfortunately it also happens to be the most dumbed down paper... usually putting sports on the front page or some dumb shit like that.
Overall, I don't really have any problem with the bias or quality of the news in papers. It is just that the format sucks. And I agree, the ads re also ridiculous. I can filter out all the crap with electronic news, thank god. Though I still like print magazines such as the Economist. That one in particular seems to be relatively light on the ads. Plenty of text.
-matthew
What major Metro Area has only a single daily newpaper? I know Chicago has at least two major ones. The Sun Times and the Tribune. And many minor publications catering to various niches. You can also usually get the New York Times anywhere in the US as well as USA Today, IIRC. The real problem is not so much lack of selection in papers, it is that they get most of their content from the same source: Associated Press.
I read it. Sorry. I was just thinking in terms of having something that is very portable. I don't think a docking station like thing would cut it. I mean, presumably if you're in a position to dock your computer, you'd don't particularly care how long it takes to charge. It is when you're on the road and only have minimal access to power that you want to get a quick charge.
Then you misunderstood. You'd still have a common folder for core OS related files. In OS X it is
I didn't say abolish C:\Windows. I said it needs to have a complete overhaul and many of the files that are in there now should not be in there.
Unfortunately the distinction between the OS and the rest of system is not so clear cut. You're extremely naive if you think it is.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I am suggesting there not be some common folder for OS related files. The problem lies in determining what exactly what the "OS" is. Some people would go so far as to say that it is just the kernel. Some might say roughly everything that is included on the OS install CD. I think you're making the same mistake that Microsoft did years ago in thinking you can clearly define what is the OS and what isn't.