Bank One recently unvieled their plans to offer a similar service.
On-line finances and bill payments are really quite convenient, and not too risky anymore. These places ensure privacy and use fairly serious encryption on transactions.
This kind of thing, though, is subject to the same fear and hype surrounding electronic procurement via the WWW.
In reality, there are far more people who are capable of getting into your private "snail mail" (or wallet, for that matter) than who could succesfully hack a bank or steal info over the web.
I spent considerable time reviewing resumes and interviewing hopeful candidates.
People with degrees may or may not be useful. Candidates with a four-year degree in traditional Computer Science were the best candidates. These people generally had the interest to complete the degree and the smarts to apply their knowledge.
People with certifications were not useful. Their certifications don't give them the creative background and basic understanding necessary to solve a problem from the ground up. They are versed only in the know-how needed to use systems popular at the time of the certification.
People with lesser degrees from lesser colleges were not useful. Their situation is similar to those who sought only a certification and tend to have skills that are specialized for the systems at the time of graduation.
Courses and certifications may be useful to those already employed in IT, but they provide little information of lasting value. Those who seek these credentials to get a job in the IT industry generally do not have the aptitude necessary to get the job done.
Students who apply themselves to a higher education in theoretical computer science have a better chance of being able to do the work. They are also more likely to innovate new technology.
I don't personally hold any degree or certification; these are just trends I have observed and will keep in mind the next time I find myself in a management position within IT (if ever).
The GNU system establishes a lot of very useful standards for software development. Although I haven't researched it much, I have no doubt that there are GNU standards pertaining to documentation (man pages and info pages particularly).
What is it that a documentation standard should address? Although GNU may have recommendations for providing info pages with programs, I don't imagine the FSF telling the developer how they should be written; nor are info pages necessarily the way many people would want to see their documents.
I have yet to see any modern synth with considerable performance data use strictly CC messages to do the setup. There just aren't enough controller messages to cover all the features on a pro synth. We're talking hundreds, if not thousands of parameters here. And what about other system messages, like song posisition pointer? What about sample dump via MIDI? Gotta be sysex; it provides a standard.
The complete SysEx specification is shipped with each synthesizer that uses it. I have never seen a synth ship without the complete sysex map. This has never been "closed" information.
One of the main reasons I can't use any of the existing Sequencer projects on Linux is that they don't support system exclusive banks. And I'm not aware of any editor/librarian available on Linux yet, either.
A lot of synthesizers have hundreds of parameters that can be tweaked to get the effects that you want, and programming these synthesizers is easily as important as playback. If the synth isn't set up properly, then the song sounds like crap. Another really anoying thing is when the software automatically sets GM mode. These are problems I've had to put up with on Linux.
It wasn't until last month that I finally got a MIDI file with an embedded 17k User Performance sysex bank to play back correctly, and that was after writing my own playback engine.
I've tried the ALSA drivers, but it would seem that there are timing issues (unless pmidi just has bugs), and there is no documentation yet on the MIDI API. It may be great for audio, though I notice a significant loss of quality even on the Audio portion over OSS drivers.
1) University tuitions are getting really crazy. Most grads I know spend years paying back student loans, and not everyone has a rich daddy to send them off to school. I've always been one for hard work, and earning an education, but it's just getting silly.
Knowledge is free. Or should be, if the people who frequent/. practice what they preach. Just because I pay thousands of dollars for my degree doesn't mean that my _knowledge_ was harder earned than someone else's.
Although people take more seriously something they pay money for, University tuitions are beginning to put education beyond the reach of many.
2) For those of you whining about the script kiddies getting their fraudulent degrees, it already happens. I quite regularly get spam email claiming that all I have to do is pay a small fee and call an 800 number, and the degree of my choice will be mailed right to my door. Of course, they assure, this is ligitimate because it is based on "life experience." Yeah.
There are plenty of legitimate University grads that don't deserve the degrees they get. There is already cheating and other devious means of getting ahead. But there are people who don't cheat that go to school too. Can we assume that honest people would also benefit from an online education?
Sure there are definite pros to physically attending school. The whole social interaction and all that. I, for one, learn quite a bit from the web.
I have begun a MIDI Sequencing project of my own, in which I have so far completed the playback engine and am focussing on the UI. I had considered making it public, but would like to have something to show, and a clear roadmap and goal before I go.
There are several sequencer projects already: Rosegarden is a good sequencer, and there is also GSeq. There is a shareware Linux sequencer called Jazz, that I didn't particularly care for.
My main problem with the state of MIDI on Linux right now is the assumption that all programs seem to make about GM hardware. I prefer using professional hardware, such as my JV-2080, where GM is not something that I am interested in. Hence, a major goal of my project is System Exclusive support from the beginning. This is something lacking in all other MIDI projects I've seen so far.
My program does a great job of playing SysEx laden MIDI files on my 2080 under Linux right now.
I'd also like to incorporate MusixTex support eventually. MusixTeX is a fantastic notation engine available for Linux, along the lines of LaTeX.
Anyway, if you're interested (and anyone else!!) in helping me on my project, let me know! I already have a domain name registered and all that...
In the majority of all Open Source projects, the intended end user is the developer who initiated the project.
Most Open Source projects are the result of a developer's need for a program that doesn't exist yet, or for which there aren't adequate implementations for the particular need.
Open Source projects are unlikely to gain developers who don't already understand the project and its goals. Once a project is well underway, making it intuitive can often mean re-designing it from the ground up.
Someone who is interested in how intuitive a project is for the baseline end user must be involved in it from the start.
People who sell software are quite interested in how well the average user can use the program, but the incentive for OSS developers just isn't there yet.
The focus has to shift from "what do I need," to "what does the average user need." To do that requires putting a LOT more effort into the project, possibly removing it from the "do it in your spare time" domain, or else applying a little of the Mongolian Hoard Principle.
Essentially we are now developing commercial software under the OSS paradigm, and it requires commercial development disciplines.
Simson is also an editor of...
on
Database Nation
·
· Score: 1
The UNIX-HATERS Handbook!
I mean, Simson Garfinkel is a notorious UNIX hater.
Because one of the predominant characteristic of OSS is that it's free.
If RMS were dead, he'd be turning over in his grave.
IE is software given away "de gratis." It is not free. If you read the the EULA on IE, it is made abundantly clear that the program belongs to Microsoft, and that they hold exclusive rights to it. Only Microsoft is authorized to determine the future of IE, including whether or not it will remain free of charge to the general public.
As a user of IE and other MS products, you are only licensed to use the product in certain ways, conforming to the EULA (whether you paid money for the privelege or not).
When you acquire an OSS program (whether you paid money for it or not), the license is quite different. Depending on the particular flavor of license, you will realize that the program doesn't belong to any single entity, but rather to a community. OSS licensing is designed to give the community "freedom" of use in whatever manner they see fit. It also provides free reign over the code, to modify and improve in any way. By using the program, you become part of the community that "owns" it.
Restrcitions placed on OSS licenses are very few, usually only sufficient to restrict devious persons from finding ways to reverse the freedom that the license provides.
The fact of the matter is that, should MS port their products to Linux, they won't be free. This doesn't mix well with the goals of GNU/Linux. In fact, MS would have a difficult time porting their Office suite because they would need to re-invent the wheel. They couldn't use GNU libraries to integrate the product without violating the GPL, for example. Office on Linux would be like a fish out of water.
I know that Slashdot readers don't want to hear this, but the very first question is whether it is even possible to create a truly good user experience on top of Linux. Many other companies have tried to make Unix easy to use and many very talented designers have worked hard on these projects for several years without very good results.
Jakob then makes two points about "reimplementing" designs and "iterating" past failed designs.
While I agree with the above statement, I would point out that the reason that these useability designs for Linux are not successful is largely because of the huge amount of different programs that use unique interfaces. Ok, KDE is a great system, and supposing everything on the desktop is KDE, then maybe we'll have progress in the area of useability.
Now supposing you like the Gnome desktop, some KDE apps, some motif apps, emacs, mutt, and a slew of other odd programs. Well, these don't play with each other very well at all.
The difference here is that, whereas the first scenario is more useable for the average user, the second scenario is only useable for the "geek" who finds it the preferable way to work.
Supposing a vendor releases a KDE only system, or a Gnome only system. Useability could be greatly increased to the point of a Mac or Windows OS, from a regular end user's point of view. All of a sudden, though, we have only a limited set of apps that work well with this system. And now "using Linux" becomes entirely meaningless since Linux User A, who only has ever seen the KDE desktop and KOffice, can't use Linux User B's system based on Gnome and some other product. It's a whole different OS, from their point of view.
Making Linux useable to the most basic kind of computer user means taking away a lot of the freedom that Linux provides and replacing it with some arbitrary standard that is deemed useable by the masses.
Obviously, this is exactly what happens when you put Linux in an appliance. You don't get all of the flexibility that Linux offers, at least not directly. This is all abstracted behind a few buttons which serve defined purposes. The end user isn't expected to tweak, configure, or program to any extent offered beyond the interface provided.
Really, if you think about it, the Open aspect of Linux isn't so important to most people as it is to the Linux Community. Sure, "gratis" is nice, but "freedom" doesn't matter much.
When developers start thinking that way, maybe they will make Linux useable. Linux need a subset, independent from its parent. Much like embedded Linux is a subset of Linux. A Linux for the masses, One distribution for Everyone Else.
I have a certain uncle, a professor at a University of some acclaim, who is credited with discovering a protein which has been extremely useful in the battle against cancer.
As I have heard the story from my mother, this University was unwilling or unable to help my uncle apply for patents regarding his discovery and work with the protein.
As a result, a couple of very large, very wealthy pharmeceutical companies are engaged in a bitter multi-billion-dollar lawsuit regarding who has the rights to this discovery, both claiming to have made it first.
If a person or organization has an ethical or moral beef against the use of patents, and therefore _doesn't_ patent their work, should it be left to the greedy hands of corporations to lay claim on all of it?
Interestingly, this "budding theory" predates any computer language. Before a language may be conceived, we have to understand things like Turing Completeness, "regular languages", context/context free, lexicons, protocol, computational complexity, space/time constraints, discrete computation theory, etc.
Unlike engineering, computer science was _born_ in theory.
In the past it has not been "See, here's how you program in C/C++/Java. And this is what a compiler and OS do. And here's 4 other things. Now go practice coding. Soon you'll be a scientist/engineer." That is, unfortunately, our current trend.
In the past we have seen great teachers such as Turing, Dykstra (sp), and Knuth.
If anything, we should _return_ to the theoretical roots of computer science to provide understanding for our current practice.
I believe that the overabundance of choices that you describe is a result of a growing need for an application or service that hasn't been completely realized yet. Since the various different programs aren't sufficiently developed to suit everyone's needs, many developers feel that they can create their own to suit their particular needs more easily than modifying someone else's. However, sometimes one program does actually provide a basis for a new, completely unrelated program.
Once a developer or team advances their program sufficiently for other projects (with similar needs) to notice how cool it is, these other lesser projects tend to be abandoned into obscurity. I think this is pretty much the case with GTK and QT for example. We don't see a lot of new widget sets coming out anymore.
Obviously once we get a few really good journaling file systems, they'll stop coming in abundance. We might expect to see ports of file systems from existing platforms (which would be productive), and the natural evolution of the current native filesystem into a journaling file system (which would also be productive). Perhaps a high-performance fs inteded to compete with the native fs wouldn't be out of the question.
I agree that too many independent projects would be uncalled for, but not likely to happen.
I have yet to see a Katz article that deals with something besides tragedy. The tragedy of being a geek. The tragedy of technology. The tragedy of religion. The tragedy of society.
I've never seen Katz treat a subject objectively. There's always a slant; some bias that leaves little consideration for opposite ideas.
Ok, Rolling Stone thrives on this kind of literature. It's not a mag for the objective-minded person. It is targeted more at the revolutionary whose value system is based in some form of hedonism. It is a place for the contra-voices to vent their ideas when they have been rejected by the people as a whole.
This kind of writing doesn't provoke thought. It provokes emotions. Anger, paranoia, amusement, accord, discord. It is propaganda more than anything else.
If Katz wants an "open source" writing project, he will have to be satisfied with using other people's ideas. It isn't a "Jon Katz" article anymore. It won't have the same feeling. It won't convey the same ideas that Just Jon would convey. It might say things that he doesn't agree with. It might come to a conclusion that he doesn't agree with. And he can't be the only one who decides what gets written and what gets left out. Ultimately, he can't even claim it as "his" work. The writing, compiling, and publishing must be guided by the core contributors.
I wouldn't break up MicroSoft. I wouldn't impose restrictions and stuff on the way they do business.
I would just make MicroSoft change the name of the company. I would make them call it "The Monkey Pumping Software Prostitution Company." Then ban the use of "MS" or "MicroSoft."
Slashdot Mirror
Bank One recently unvieled their plans to offer a similar service.
On-line finances and bill payments are really quite convenient, and not too risky anymore. These places ensure privacy and use fairly serious encryption on transactions.
This kind of thing, though, is subject to the same fear and hype surrounding electronic procurement via the WWW.
In reality, there are far more people who are capable of getting into your private "snail mail" (or wallet, for that matter) than who could succesfully hack a bank or steal info over the web.
My resume was a bit out-dated. I was assistant mgr before working for Corel, then I returned as the full-time manager, which I did for almost 2 years.
I spent considerable time reviewing resumes and interviewing hopeful candidates.
People with degrees may or may not be useful. Candidates with a four-year degree in traditional Computer Science were the best candidates. These people generally had the interest to complete the degree and the smarts to apply their knowledge.
People with certifications were not useful. Their certifications don't give them the creative background and basic understanding necessary to solve a problem from the ground up. They are versed only in the know-how needed to use systems popular at the time of the certification.
People with lesser degrees from lesser colleges were not useful. Their situation is similar to those who sought only a certification and tend to have skills that are specialized for the systems at the time of graduation.
Courses and certifications may be useful to those already employed in IT, but they provide little information of lasting value. Those who seek these credentials to get a job in the IT industry generally do not have the aptitude necessary to get the job done.
Students who apply themselves to a higher education in theoretical computer science have a better chance of being able to do the work. They are also more likely to innovate new technology.
I don't personally hold any degree or certification; these are just trends I have observed and will keep in mind the next time I find myself in a management position within IT (if ever).
Do you see any future shifts toward other standards, such as reggae, mambo, or salsa?
The GNU system establishes a lot of very useful standards for software development. Although I haven't researched it much, I have no doubt that there are GNU standards pertaining to documentation (man pages and info pages particularly).
What is it that a documentation standard should address? Although GNU may have recommendations for providing info pages with programs, I don't imagine the FSF telling the developer how they should be written; nor are info pages necessarily the way many people would want to see their documents.
This is simply not true.
I have yet to see any modern synth with considerable performance data use strictly CC messages to do the setup. There just aren't enough controller messages to cover all the features on a pro synth. We're talking hundreds, if not thousands of parameters here. And what about other system messages, like song posisition pointer? What about sample dump via MIDI? Gotta be sysex; it provides a standard.
The complete SysEx specification is shipped with each synthesizer that uses it. I have never seen a synth ship without the complete sysex map. This has never been "closed" information.
One of the main reasons I can't use any of the existing Sequencer projects on Linux is that they don't support system exclusive banks. And I'm not aware of any editor/librarian available on Linux yet, either.
A lot of synthesizers have hundreds of parameters that can be tweaked to get the effects that you want, and programming these synthesizers is easily as important as playback. If the synth isn't set up properly, then the song sounds like crap. Another really anoying thing is when the software automatically sets GM mode. These are problems I've had to put up with on Linux.
It wasn't until last month that I finally got a MIDI file with an embedded 17k User Performance sysex bank to play back correctly, and that was after writing my own playback engine.
I've tried the ALSA drivers, but it would seem that there are timing issues (unless pmidi just has bugs), and there is no documentation yet on the MIDI API. It may be great for audio, though I notice a significant loss of quality even on the Audio portion over OSS drivers.
1) University tuitions are getting really crazy. Most grads I know spend years paying back student loans, and not everyone has a rich daddy to send them off to school. I've always been one for hard work, and earning an education, but it's just getting silly.
/. practice what they preach. Just because I pay thousands of dollars for my degree doesn't mean that my _knowledge_ was harder earned than someone else's.
Knowledge is free. Or should be, if the people who frequent
Although people take more seriously something they pay money for, University tuitions are beginning to put education beyond the reach of many.
2) For those of you whining about the script kiddies getting their fraudulent degrees, it already happens. I quite regularly get spam email claiming that all I have to do is pay a small fee and call an 800 number, and the degree of my choice will be mailed right to my door. Of course, they assure, this is ligitimate because it is based on "life experience." Yeah.
There are plenty of legitimate University grads that don't deserve the degrees they get. There is already cheating and other devious means of getting ahead. But there are people who don't cheat that go to school too. Can we assume that honest people would also benefit from an online education?
Sure there are definite pros to physically attending school. The whole social interaction and all that. I, for one, learn quite a bit from the web.
Not to mention BMRT, which is Renderman compliant as well. There are other good ones too, like Blender, Radiance, POV-Ray, and Moonlight 3d.
These are all pretty decent renderers for Linux. Some are more suited to normal consumer use than others.
I have begun a MIDI Sequencing project of my own, in which I have so far completed the playback engine and am focussing on the UI. I had considered making it public, but would like to have something to show, and a clear roadmap and goal before I go.
There are several sequencer projects already: Rosegarden is a good sequencer, and there is also GSeq. There is a shareware Linux sequencer called Jazz, that I didn't particularly care for.
My main problem with the state of MIDI on Linux right now is the assumption that all programs seem to make about GM hardware. I prefer using professional hardware, such as my JV-2080, where GM is not something that I am interested in. Hence, a major goal of my project is System Exclusive support from the beginning. This is something lacking in all other MIDI projects I've seen so far.
My program does a great job of playing SysEx laden MIDI files on my 2080 under Linux right now.
I'd also like to incorporate MusixTex support eventually. MusixTeX is a fantastic notation engine available for Linux, along the lines of LaTeX.
Anyway, if you're interested (and anyone else!!) in helping me on my project, let me know! I already have a domain name registered and all that...
In the majority of all Open Source projects, the intended end user is the developer who initiated the project.
Most Open Source projects are the result of a developer's need for a program that doesn't exist yet, or for which there aren't adequate implementations for the particular need.
Open Source projects are unlikely to gain developers who don't already understand the project and its goals. Once a project is well underway, making it intuitive can often mean re-designing it from the ground up.
Someone who is interested in how intuitive a project is for the baseline end user must be involved in it from the start.
People who sell software are quite interested in how well the average user can use the program, but the incentive for OSS developers just isn't there yet.
The focus has to shift from "what do I need," to "what does the average user need." To do that requires putting a LOT more effort into the project, possibly removing it from the "do it in your spare time" domain, or else applying a little of the Mongolian Hoard Principle.
Essentially we are now developing commercial software under the OSS paradigm, and it requires commercial development disciplines.
The UNIX-HATERS Handbook!
:)
I mean, Simson Garfinkel is a notorious UNIX hater.
Check out:
http://www.catalog.com/hopki ns/unix-haters/preface.html
Although I consider myself a Linux/Unix enthusiast, I'll admit some of the things on this page made me laugh.
Sorry for the marginally offtopic post.
Who said Slashdot was biased?
Because one of the predominant characteristic of OSS is that it's free.
If RMS were dead, he'd be turning over in his grave.
IE is software given away "de gratis." It is not free. If you read the the EULA on IE, it is made abundantly clear that the program belongs to Microsoft, and that they hold exclusive rights to it. Only Microsoft is authorized to determine the future of IE, including whether or not it will remain free of charge to the general public.
As a user of IE and other MS products, you are only licensed to use the product in certain ways, conforming to the EULA (whether you paid money for the privelege or not).
When you acquire an OSS program (whether you paid money for it or not), the license is quite different. Depending on the particular flavor of license, you will realize that the program doesn't belong to any single entity, but rather to a community. OSS licensing is designed to give the community "freedom" of use in whatever manner they see fit. It also provides free reign over the code, to modify and improve in any way. By using the program, you become part of the community that "owns" it.
Restrcitions placed on OSS licenses are very few, usually only sufficient to restrict devious persons from finding ways to reverse the freedom that the license provides.
The fact of the matter is that, should MS port their products to Linux, they won't be free. This doesn't mix well with the goals of GNU/Linux. In fact, MS would have a difficult time porting their Office suite because they would need to re-invent the wheel. They couldn't use GNU libraries to integrate the product without violating the GPL, for example. Office on Linux would be like a fish out of water.
I actually started working on a version of Parsec for DOS some years back. Never got too far.
Hunt the Wumpus... A-Maze-Ing... Super demon attack... TI invaders...
Ah the good old days.
I find this statement interesting:
I know that Slashdot readers don't want to hear this, but the very first question is whether it is even possible to create a truly good user experience on top of Linux. Many other companies have tried to make Unix easy to use and many very talented designers have worked hard on these projects for several years without very good results.
Jakob then makes two points about "reimplementing" designs and "iterating" past failed designs.
While I agree with the above statement, I would point out that the reason that these useability designs for Linux are not successful is largely because of the huge amount of different programs that use unique interfaces. Ok, KDE is a great system, and supposing everything on the desktop is KDE, then maybe we'll have progress in the area of useability.
Now supposing you like the Gnome desktop, some KDE apps, some motif apps, emacs, mutt, and a slew of other odd programs. Well, these don't play with each other very well at all.
The difference here is that, whereas the first scenario is more useable for the average user, the second scenario is only useable for the "geek" who finds it the preferable way to work.
Supposing a vendor releases a KDE only system, or a Gnome only system. Useability could be greatly increased to the point of a Mac or Windows OS, from a regular end user's point of view. All of a sudden, though, we have only a limited set of apps that work well with this system. And now "using Linux" becomes entirely meaningless since Linux User A, who only has ever seen the KDE desktop and KOffice, can't use Linux User B's system based on Gnome and some other product. It's a whole different OS, from their point of view.
Making Linux useable to the most basic kind of computer user means taking away a lot of the freedom that Linux provides and replacing it with some arbitrary standard that is deemed useable by the masses.
Obviously, this is exactly what happens when you put Linux in an appliance. You don't get all of the flexibility that Linux offers, at least not directly. This is all abstracted behind a few buttons which serve defined purposes. The end user isn't expected to tweak, configure, or program to any extent offered beyond the interface provided.
Really, if you think about it, the Open aspect of Linux isn't so important to most people as it is to the Linux Community. Sure, "gratis" is nice, but "freedom" doesn't matter much.
When developers start thinking that way, maybe they will make Linux useable. Linux need a subset, independent from its parent. Much like embedded Linux is a subset of Linux. A Linux for the masses, One distribution for Everyone Else.
Yeah, what a sweet game that was. GREAT SHOT, PILOT.
Ha, I wish I had a TI joystick that still worked... It's awful to play it on the keyboard.
I never got past level 4.
I'm doubting this Linux game has anything to do with good ol' Parsec, though.
Do you see computers ever becoming accessible to, say, monkeys?
I have a certain uncle, a professor at a University of some acclaim, who is credited with discovering a protein which has been extremely useful in the battle against cancer.
As I have heard the story from my mother, this University was unwilling or unable to help my uncle apply for patents regarding his discovery and work with the protein.
As a result, a couple of very large, very wealthy pharmeceutical companies are engaged in a bitter multi-billion-dollar lawsuit regarding who has the rights to this discovery, both claiming to have made it first.
If a person or organization has an ethical or moral beef against the use of patents, and therefore _doesn't_ patent their work, should it be left to the greedy hands of corporations to lay claim on all of it?
Interestingly, this "budding theory" predates any computer language. Before a language may be conceived, we have to understand things like Turing Completeness, "regular languages", context/context free, lexicons, protocol, computational complexity, space/time constraints, discrete computation theory, etc.
Unlike engineering, computer science was _born_ in theory.
In the past it has not been "See, here's how you program in C/C++/Java. And this is what a compiler and OS do. And here's 4 other things. Now go practice coding. Soon you'll be a scientist/engineer." That is, unfortunately, our current trend.
In the past we have seen great teachers such as Turing, Dykstra (sp), and Knuth.
If anything, we should _return_ to the theoretical roots of computer science to provide understanding for our current practice.
I believe that the overabundance of choices that you describe is a result of a growing need for an application or service that hasn't been completely realized yet. Since the various different programs aren't sufficiently developed to suit everyone's needs, many developers feel that they can create their own to suit their particular needs more easily than modifying someone else's. However, sometimes one program does actually provide a basis for a new, completely unrelated program.
Once a developer or team advances their program sufficiently for other projects (with similar needs) to notice how cool it is, these other lesser projects tend to be abandoned into obscurity. I think this is pretty much the case with GTK and QT for example. We don't see a lot of new widget sets coming out anymore.
Obviously once we get a few really good journaling file systems, they'll stop coming in abundance. We might expect to see ports of file systems from existing platforms (which would be productive), and the natural evolution of the current native filesystem into a journaling file system (which would also be productive). Perhaps a high-performance fs inteded to compete with the native fs wouldn't be out of the question.
I agree that too many independent projects would be uncalled for, but not likely to happen.
Indeed. I took the liberty of informing the author of the article about this small inacuracy.
"God became man that man might become God."
...What is your function?
:)
I have yet to see a Katz article that deals with something besides tragedy. The tragedy of being a geek. The tragedy of technology. The tragedy of religion. The tragedy of society.
I've never seen Katz treat a subject objectively. There's always a slant; some bias that leaves little consideration for opposite ideas.
Ok, Rolling Stone thrives on this kind of literature. It's not a mag for the objective-minded person. It is targeted more at the revolutionary whose value system is based in some form of hedonism. It is a place for the contra-voices to vent their ideas when they have been rejected by the people as a whole.
This kind of writing doesn't provoke thought. It provokes emotions. Anger, paranoia, amusement, accord, discord. It is propaganda more than anything else.
If Katz wants an "open source" writing project, he will have to be satisfied with using other people's ideas. It isn't a "Jon Katz" article anymore. It won't have the same feeling. It won't convey the same ideas that Just Jon would convey. It might say things that he doesn't agree with. It might come to a conclusion that he doesn't agree with. And he can't be the only one who decides what gets written and what gets left out. Ultimately, he can't even claim it as "his" work. The writing, compiling, and publishing must be guided by the core contributors.
I wouldn't break up MicroSoft. I wouldn't impose restrictions and stuff on the way they do business.
I would just make MicroSoft change the name of the company. I would make them call it "The Monkey Pumping Software Prostitution Company." Then ban the use of "MS" or "MicroSoft."