There's nothing magic about Linux, other than its ability to suppress the geek skepticism reflex.
There's quite a bit of magic, actually, and it's the Linux's "app store", aka package management system. People just don't download and install software from anywhere, they install software through package managers. Software installed through package managers is configured, tested, and signed by the distribution maintainer. And those people seem to be doing a good job keeping malware off the machines.
Would you be so naive and parochial to suggest that having a body covered with prison tats is not an indicator of social class today?
What the article meant is that these expensive and difficult modifications did not appear to be reserved for a privileged class. In a historical context, that was absolutely clear.
Seems to me you're bringing your own cultural biases and agenda to reading this paper: you (apparently) live in a rich first world country where it doesn't surprise you where even the lowest classes and outcasts can command wealth and power beyond anything traditional societies could dream of.
Who knows what people whose entire conceptual universe is still barely comprehensible to us were thinking. Probably that they had displeased the gods somehow because things kept getting worse, but even that's just a guess."
Ssh or vnc from a remote host requires having a remote host.
No, it just requires having some kind of terminal (X terminal usually).
If you want the other kind of multiseat, multiple graphics cards and keyboards in the same PC, Linux supports that as well, there just isn't a good UI for configuring it. That's because it's really an inferior setup and there is little reason to use it over X terminals. But if you really want to, it's not hard to use either.
Windows, on the other hand, doesn't support either setup well.
Take a nice, cute, cuddly stuffed animal, shove a hard robotic skeleton inside, and have the whole thing croak after 20 minutes when it runs out of power. Yeah, a real improvement.
These are teenagers learning to work with dangerous chemicals and devices. Of course, accidents will occur, and that's tragic. But are there any statistics that a university research lab is a more dangerous place to work than an OSHA-compliant workplace filled with workers of the same age? For that matter, is the university research lab any more dangerous, hour for hour, than, say, teenage driving or basic training?
In different words, is there any indication that there is a problem that needs fixing? If people are willing to accept a higher level of risk for other activities, then university research labs might not be the place to start optimizing safety.
Granted, there is no brain-dead mode for people who don't know how to use VNC or X, but, geez, it's one or two commands. You can run Gnome, KDE, or whatever else your heart desires.
I reckon the thing I miss the most when looking for good applications on Windows (and to some extent OSX) is package management.
Well, simple solution: install Ubuntu now.
Another simple solution: wait three years. Then, Apple will introduce package management and claim to have invented it. And a year later, Microsoft will have its own version of it and Apple fanboys will claim that Microsoft stole it from Apple. And both will insist on getting full access to your credit card and wallet and allow Microsoft and Apple to do anything on your machine at any time they choose.
I use a free Java apps occasionally on the desktop, on several different platforms. They look foreign, they don't integrate well with the desktop, they're slow to start up and run, they use dysfunctional file selectors, and a bunch of keys don't work because somehow Java doesn't understand my keyboard map.
Even on my phone, I have replaced all Java ME apps with native apps for the same reasons: they look bad, ran at the wrong resolutions, didn't integrate with the rest of the phone, and didn't understand the keyboard.
Although written in pure Java, the exploit is OS-specific and therefore not cross platform. Since the Java community disapproves of non-cross-platform code, no real Java programmer would ever actually write code like that, and so there really is nothing to worry about:-)
I think next, there should be lists like "Why Windows is not ready for the desktop." and "Why OS X is not ready for the desktop." because there are just about as many things wrong with those systems. A few of the points are actually sort of valid, but they are matters of degree. For example, volume settings on Ubuntu 9.04 are insanely complicated--but there are comparable problems on Windows and OS X.
Mostly, what the list tells me is that Mr. Tashkinov is rather immature and inexperienced. If he wants to help, he should clean up his list, submit bug reports for valid problems, and perhaps roll up his sleeves and fix a couple of them. If he has merely found his love for Microsoft software... well, don't let the door hit you in the back on your way out, hand over your wallet, and assume the position.
Actually, if the religious are correct, then God wrote the rules to say that chemicals would most likely someday combine to form the original organic compounds that would evolve to be life as we know it
That position is called "deism" and is very different from "theism", and it's very different from saying "God created man".
Scientists that say "There's no God, because Science doesn't allow there to be a God,"
Since there is no accepted definition of "God", scientists generally don't make such statements. What scientists can say is that there is no shred of scientific evidence for the existence of anything like any of the "God" concepts of the Abrahamic religions. Furthermore, scientists can say that any literal interpretation of the Bible contradicts known facts and observations and therefore has to be wrong. The only even remotely Christian theology that is known to be compatible with science is deism, but deism is physically indistinguishable from atheism, so it's not clear that it is a theology at all.
So, scientists don't say that there "is no God", but that no religion has yet been able to put forth a concept of "God" that isn't either trivial or wrong. You're welcome to try.
By nature of constantly evolving we were in fact different, every generation is different
Species don't constantly "evolve". If there's no evolutionary pressure to change and a species has found its niche, it can remain unchanged for extended periods of time.
Humans from 5000 years ago were genetically probably no more different on average from modern humans than many specific populations of modern humans are from the rest of humanity. Evolution only can be said to have occurred once a species has moved away from its ancestors further than its natural variation.
'I'm a guy who doesn't see anything good having come from the Internet, period.'
Well, just having him feel that way would already have been worth it.
Seriously: media companies need to get used to the fact that if distribution of content costs next to nothing, they end up making only a few percent of next to nothing, and that doesn't support the lavish lifestyles they are used to. Other industries had to discover the same thing. It's what a free market and innovation are all about.
Obviously, thousands of years ago, we were different
Thousands of years ago, we were not different. Tens of thousands of years ago, we may have been slightly different.
I believe we were created by god, to evolve.
There is an unbroken chain of a billion years of evolution connecting us to simple bacteria. If God created any species from scratch, it must have been simple bacteria, but the rest evolved from that.
What's interesting, is when I say that, depending on which side of the creationism/evolution debate you are on, sparks controversy from both sides;)
Well, from the scientific side, you spark controversy because you're wrong. From the creationism side, you spark controversy because you use the "evolution" word.
Slashdot Mirror
That's assuming that their model is even remotely correct. The chances of that are astronomically small.
There's nothing magic about Linux, other than its ability to suppress the geek skepticism reflex.
There's quite a bit of magic, actually, and it's the Linux's "app store", aka package management system. People just don't download and install software from anywhere, they install software through package managers. Software installed through package managers is configured, tested, and signed by the distribution maintainer. And those people seem to be doing a good job keeping malware off the machines.
It is widely accepted by those without a bias
It iw widely accepted by those without a bias that you a full of sh*t.
Do you really think having to write software on 3 different systems will result in less malware?
No, but having a smaller Microsoft market share and a larger Linux and OS X market share will. A 0/50/50 split would be even better.
Would you be so naive and parochial to suggest that having a body covered with prison tats is not an indicator of social class today?
What the article meant is that these expensive and difficult modifications did not appear to be reserved for a privileged class. In a historical context, that was absolutely clear.
Seems to me you're bringing your own cultural biases and agenda to reading this paper: you (apparently) live in a rich first world country where it doesn't surprise you where even the lowest classes and outcasts can command wealth and power beyond anything traditional societies could dream of.
Who knows what people whose entire conceptual universe is still barely comprehensible to us were thinking. Probably that they had displeased the gods somehow because things kept getting worse, but even that's just a guess."
So, you're saying the Incas were Republicans?
Ssh or vnc from a remote host requires having a remote host.
No, it just requires having some kind of terminal (X terminal usually).
If you want the other kind of multiseat, multiple graphics cards and keyboards in the same PC, Linux supports that as well, there just isn't a good UI for configuring it. That's because it's really an inferior setup and there is little reason to use it over X terminals. But if you really want to, it's not hard to use either.
Windows, on the other hand, doesn't support either setup well.
Take a nice, cute, cuddly stuffed animal, shove a hard robotic skeleton inside, and have the whole thing croak after 20 minutes when it runs out of power. Yeah, a real improvement.
These are teenagers learning to work with dangerous chemicals and devices. Of course, accidents will occur, and that's tragic. But are there any statistics that a university research lab is a more dangerous place to work than an OSHA-compliant workplace filled with workers of the same age? For that matter, is the university research lab any more dangerous, hour for hour, than, say, teenage driving or basic training?
In different words, is there any indication that there is a problem that needs fixing? If people are willing to accept a higher level of risk for other activities, then university research labs might not be the place to start optimizing safety.
So, tell us, what enlightened nation do you live in? If it's in the EU, you are at least as much spied upon, analyzed, data mined, etc. as Americans.
I've been waiting for multiseat linux to gel for years.
Are you joking? Multiseat on Linux is used everywhere and has been around nearly from day 1.
People usually start it up via
ssh -X someserver.com
or
ssh -f -L 5910:localhost:5910 someserver.com tightvncserver :10 :10
xtightvncviewer
Granted, there is no brain-dead mode for people who don't know how to use VNC or X, but, geez, it's one or two commands. You can run Gnome, KDE, or whatever else your heart desires.
Good graciousness! Absolutely everything about this is backwards!
Has it occurred to you that different people might have different needs and interests in a relationship?
Unlike Europium, Americium is unstable and doesn't last very long.
Those who dismiss usability and design (and the network effect!!) under the gauzy umbrella of "marketing"
You're so right; he should have pointed out that App Store succeeded despite its numerous usability problems.
I reckon the thing I miss the most when looking for good applications on Windows (and to some extent OSX) is package management.
Well, simple solution: install Ubuntu now.
Another simple solution: wait three years. Then, Apple will introduce package management and claim to have invented it. And a year later, Microsoft will have its own version of it and Apple fanboys will claim that Microsoft stole it from Apple. And both will insist on getting full access to your credit card and wallet and allow Microsoft and Apple to do anything on your machine at any time they choose.
I use a free Java apps occasionally on the desktop, on several different platforms. They look foreign, they don't integrate well with the desktop, they're slow to start up and run, they use dysfunctional file selectors, and a bunch of keys don't work because somehow Java doesn't understand my keyboard map.
Even on my phone, I have replaced all Java ME apps with native apps for the same reasons: they look bad, ran at the wrong resolutions, didn't integrate with the rest of the phone, and didn't understand the keyboard.
Although written in pure Java, the exploit is OS-specific and therefore not cross platform. Since the Java community disapproves of non-cross-platform code, no real Java programmer would ever actually write code like that, and so there really is nothing to worry about :-)
I think next, there should be lists like "Why Windows is not ready for the desktop." and "Why OS X is not ready for the desktop." because there are just about as many things wrong with those systems. A few of the points are actually sort of valid, but they are matters of degree. For example, volume settings on Ubuntu 9.04 are insanely complicated--but there are comparable problems on Windows and OS X.
Mostly, what the list tells me is that Mr. Tashkinov is rather immature and inexperienced. If he wants to help, he should clean up his list, submit bug reports for valid problems, and perhaps roll up his sleeves and fix a couple of them. If he has merely found his love for Microsoft software... well, don't let the door hit you in the back on your way out, hand over your wallet, and assume the position.
A few days of a free schedule, no interruptions, and a private, quiet workspace will do the trick for me.
Actually, if the religious are correct, then God wrote the rules to say that chemicals would most likely someday combine to form the original organic compounds that would evolve to be life as we know it
That position is called "deism" and is very different from "theism", and it's very different from saying "God created man".
Scientists that say "There's no God, because Science doesn't allow there to be a God,"
Since there is no accepted definition of "God", scientists generally don't make such statements. What scientists can say is that there is no shred of scientific evidence for the existence of anything like any of the "God" concepts of the Abrahamic religions. Furthermore, scientists can say that any literal interpretation of the Bible contradicts known facts and observations and therefore has to be wrong. The only even remotely Christian theology that is known to be compatible with science is deism, but deism is physically indistinguishable from atheism, so it's not clear that it is a theology at all.
So, scientists don't say that there "is no God", but that no religion has yet been able to put forth a concept of "God" that isn't either trivial or wrong. You're welcome to try.
There's plenty of evidence that simple bacteria could have evolved naturally out of the chemical soup present on earth at that time.
That evidence is suggestive; there are reasonable alternative explanations.
The evidence that humans evolved from bacteria, however, is incontrovertible; there simply is no reasonable alternative explanation.
By nature of constantly evolving we were in fact different, every generation is different
Species don't constantly "evolve". If there's no evolutionary pressure to change and a species has found its niche, it can remain unchanged for extended periods of time.
Humans from 5000 years ago were genetically probably no more different on average from modern humans than many specific populations of modern humans are from the rest of humanity. Evolution only can be said to have occurred once a species has moved away from its ancestors further than its natural variation.
'I'm a guy who doesn't see anything good having come from the Internet, period.'
Well, just having him feel that way would already have been worth it.
Seriously: media companies need to get used to the fact that if distribution of content costs next to nothing, they end up making only a few percent of next to nothing, and that doesn't support the lavish lifestyles they are used to. Other industries had to discover the same thing. It's what a free market and innovation are all about.
Does that mean that USB docking stations are now supported?
Obviously, thousands of years ago, we were different
Thousands of years ago, we were not different. Tens of thousands of years ago, we may have been slightly different.
I believe we were created by god, to evolve.
There is an unbroken chain of a billion years of evolution connecting us to simple bacteria. If God created any species from scratch, it must have been simple bacteria, but the rest evolved from that.
What's interesting, is when I say that, depending on which side of the creationism/evolution debate you are on, sparks controversy from both sides ;)
Well, from the scientific side, you spark controversy because you're wrong. From the creationism side, you spark controversy because you use the "evolution" word.
1. Why didn't they test first, then announce launch date?
Because they're soooo smart, unlike the rest of us, they don't need to test their software.
And if you don't like what it does, it's because you're stupid.
I'm obviously stupid.