KDE and GNOME are severely lacking design. Evidence that nobody ever thought of designing the interface:
1. There are menus on the windows, the window title bars, the desktop, the 'start' icon, and even at the top of the desktop. (yes, GNOME, Enlightenment and X are three separate entities, and so coders think they each deserve their own independent menus... but this is just lumping it all together... this is not design!)
2. Hundreds of damned cryptic commands, pertaining to different functions/systems, all lumped together across many directories. (you haven't got a real gui until every single last one of them has it's own individual icon and help description available through the file browser, with clear distinctions between apps, system/os components, and shared resources... this is how your grandmother will learn to be comfortable with the computer....
3. Oh, and get rid of the 'start' menu. Lumping everything in a hierarchical menu is just awful. If the file browser was better you wouldn't need a menu to find things. (MS has made the start menu their 'trademark', which means they had to stick it on WinCE, which is just terrible... all that precious screen space wasted on a menu bar, who's task bar is useless because it was designed to work horizontally on a 17" monitor... this is puking awful 'design'.)
But maybe it's already too late for Linux and X, given their historically justified reasonings and forms. I mean, is it actually possible to solve/design in points 1 and 2 above? I suspect not.
Yes, I do *suspect* that the big corp wants to lock out their competitors. Yes, they *propably* have strategies for promoting their own services and protocols. Yes, their strategy *probably* encompasses internet access by the masses. Yes, big corps *probably* want a monopoly, which looks like restricting your *need* to make a choice.
Yes, it *looks* like it's your own choice to buy these things. Yes, having someone say you *should not* buy them looks like an infringement on your *sence* of freedom. Yes, the free market *looks* free.
OK, now that I've tried to see your points of view, let me point out some subtleties/obvious points:
Games/life (ie. any human activity) is more fun for everybody when played with fair rules. So we have rules for driving, aimed (I hope) at making the flow of traffic safer and more efficient. I am *free* to go when it is green *if* everyone else obeys the stop-if-red rule. So, within reasonably FAIR rules, I have MORE freedom.
Regarding free markets... someone dropping a bomb on my head is a violation of my freedom to live. The people that *made* the bombs, *sold* the bombs, and *transported* the bombs have *responsability* for my death. (Note that I stop there. I do not include the manufacturers of the cars that the bomb factory workers used to drive to work.) The FREE MARKET concept usually *sounds* good.... but it gets more credit than it's worth, simply because someone stuck the word *FREE* on it. What other people are supposedly free to sell, does affect me. And the environment. So we have rules about asbestos and DDT. They cause direct, unavoidable harm if used... in many cases.
Does a playstation cause harm? First, notice how *seductive* it is. Second, notice it's aimed mainly at children. Does a child, or adult, really have a *choice* about *wanting* one?
I'm talking will power here... like the will of a scientist to forego fame for the sake of not devising some new cunning weapon. I *think* a playstation can be looked at from the 'temptation' angle. Which is why some people, like Hobbex, can *reasonably* observe that consumers are VICTIMS.
But does a playstation cause harm? I am tempted by chocolate and maybe I get fat. But being a bit overweight (not including obesity) is not immediately life threatening... but does a playstation have potential for 'damage'? Are there studies on brain development and computer games...?
I'm not advocating that fat people sue chocolate manufacturers. And I am in *favour* of the people who quit working for companies that make drinks targetted at kids that contain way too much sugar.
Smokers, on the other hand, are victims, in the *sence* that they were actively seduced *while* the companies knew, and witheld, the knowledge of it's harm. Notice I don't say smoking (in private) should be banned...
I agree with warning people that the internet has potentials that we would be wise not to squander. Take for example transportation: car looks convenient, so more cars + less busses, but then too much traffic, so try to give up car, but can't because busses are too run down, which is like saying: We need MS Windows because everyone else has poor market share.
Yes, we are free to buy these games consoles, but are they in our best long term interests? Perhaps we have already learn't our lesson with Windows.
My PPC isn't going to run their distribution. Contributing their work to an already established one, say RedHat, which LinuxPPC is based on, would have allowed me and other PPC users to benefit.
I'm not a newbie, and I'm not a Guru. I'm not a sysadmin, but I would'nt mind learning.
One of the beauties of open source OS is that every component is accessible. It can be configured exquisitely (if you know how, which I don't). Now imagine having ten different ways to configure a batch of stuff, none of which work quite right. Well, now you're thinking like an MS engineer.
Something should only need to be said ONCE, and right now the config files are the ultimate authority. It's like when you want to complain about something; you ask to see the Manager, not the teaboy. GUIs are like the teaboy... friendly but only do simple things. They have no power.
Yes the config files are idiosyncratic. But hell, Windows is idiosincraptic. Over time perhaps, syntax could be pruned, but ooonly by the respective authors, contributors etc. Let people tend their own garden. If they want to simplify, fine, but don't exclude people just because they invent clever ways of saying things!
So that's two issues: that config tools are never the real authority, and can (and will) get out of synch, and that the.configs have different syntax, but to 'standardise' is to not evolve.
The third and _separate_ issue is The User. We often talk as if there are only two kinds of users, like the novice and the expert. But really there's a whole spectrum of semi to skilled user 'levels' in between. Our documentation doesn't reflect that. You're either a Dummy (insert hot poker in security hole here) or an expert. And with today's documentation, the leap from newbie to sysadmin is like a great chasm.
I think that's a big problem against adoption.
People at home have to be their own sysadmins, to some degree. The GUI install may get your system up, but it won't teach you anything. Nor should it. You know from your own experience, that you learn best when you _need_ to learn. Say you want to buy a printer for your system. Where do you start? If all you see before you is fog, you drive slowly. If the road is clear, you race ahead. Starting with Linux documentation is very very foggy.
This problem comes from the exclusive use of text based description (how long does it take to read _every_ man page, or even books ?).
I am appalled at the lack of _diagrams_. Sequential statements are fine for programmers but when a person arrives in any foreign city the first thing they do is purchase a MAP. This is why the mac _tends_ to work; because the map is fairly clean and accurate. This is why Windows doesn't; because what the GUI is trying to map is fucked up anyway.
With a MAP of systems, that point to maps of subsystems, which hilight general behaviours, and ultimately (for those in need when fsck suddenly starts complaining) individual executables, configs, scripts and the data formats being dealt with, willing users can educate themselves as needed. Our docs need to show the big picture, quickly and clearly, and where to find the detail when needed.
As a linux newbie myself, I agree entirely with jetpack. My first steps were slow. And I actually likeconfig files.
But I couldn't find answers because I didn't know the questions.
I would love to know what every file was used in concert for, including where to go when I needed to know subsystems in detail. If I knew, I would draw a map. A map is what I call a "graphical" install. GUI installs are just a quicker way to hell (let me do what I don't know I'm doing faster).
Instead, I want a wholistic, fine grained, system encompassing map (an actual drawing) that can guide you wherever you want to go.
Yes, and without that it would not be a mac. I am glad the incomplete Appearance themes were Steved, because the inconsistency would have irritated me. That was a design decision, by someone who values UI design... not just eye candy but Form and Function.
Of the plethora of shareware extensions available for the mac, very few actually improve the interface (IMHO). It's not a bad design, and of course it's not easily configurable like nix WMs.
There's the story of the architect of a glass office block who selected window blinds that only had two settings.. fully open or fully closed, because he didn't want people messing up the aesthetics of his facade. I think that's going too far, but does show that design requires a 'Nazi' mentality. (Hitler originally wanted to be an architect).
If what you value is configurability, then that's fine and don't trash MacOS for not having it. It's not meant to have it. There are other systems that are designed to be flexible, and those can be compared on how well that design objective was achieved. Flexibility is quite hard to build into a system, especially when the ultimate in flexibility would be to just give people a book on windowing systems and a copy of egcs.
Yes, Windows is a mess, and that's my main problem with it. Its a mess for the reasons you give.
Linux is consistent, as you say, and with hunting and investigating, it's secrets can be discovered. But could we not make something that made the process of discovery faster? At the moment discovering the complexity is hard, so maybe we could work on making it 'easy' to find out what you need to know?
I wish people would stop perpetuating the myth that Windows is EASY. It is not easy. Easy is when you don't need books on it anymore. Easy is when you don't have conflicts installing stuff. Easy is when software upgrades contain fewer features AND more power.
I think that there are just some things that Linux has not yet available. That doesn't make it a harder OS, just a less complete one..
Complexity/depth is not a sin, and preserving it is not elitist. And at the same time, making it easy for people new to computers is not 'selling out'. For example, the Japanes game 'Go' is very simple, so newcomers can start playing very quickly, as there are just a few rules. But players can keep playing and develop their skill to a high masters level. Linux has the amazing value of being open, so the potential is there for becoming an advanced guru, if one so desires. At the moment that seems to take a very long time. But can't we speed this up? All that is needed is a way to make the depth more easily accessible cognitively.
A sort of map of the systems, ways of representing the complex concepts of what is going on, in a way that new users could slowly absorb. It's not about dumbing things down. It's about making the obscure more clear.
FYI spelling is not a strong point among many types of creative professionals. You remind me of the judge in Ally McBeal who checks the oral higene of councel. You are indeed manifesting sloppyness in your own thinking and critical faculties, by making spelling and neatness the basis of your most important decisions. Please listen (this is a communication skill) when I say that there are different styles of thought and cognition, and your judgement about the 'right' way only betrays to others your inability to see other viewpoints, ie. other ways of seeing. If you can't see other's ways, then YOU can't communicate.
And CAD users. There are some things that need 'pointing', like drawing. But it's constant annoyance having to move the pointer away from the drawing, to navigate through a nest of icon palettes or menus just to change between line tool and arc tool. Simple speech recognition would be marvelous.
Then there are cases where a script would be nice, like for an architectural drawing, 'change all 700 mm doors to 900 mm' - easy to say, but a hunt and click nightmare -- I mean, scrolling, clicking, dialog boxes, more dialogs etc. You shouldn't even need to SEE the drawing to do that one.
Today we have a range of possible modes of interacting - CLI, script, pointing, speech -- and OO models that should be comfortable integrating them all, on a user-need basis.
And it would be really nice to see it happen. At a firm of architects, we changed from CLI driven GDS cad system on PR1ME, to MicroGDS on Windows. After a while it became apparent that it was slower to use. We asked the ISV if they were going to add a CLI. They said that the way it was coded for windows, it was darn near impossible to do. Excuse me?
I'm really interested to know how a computer can process meaning without having experience of the 'things' that make up our world.
Telling the computer to "remind me to take out the trash" may not work - does the computer not need it's own experience of 'trash' and 'out' ?
Our symbols refer to experiential contexts, so maybe AI language efforts have to begin with giving the machine better inputs. Then code basic 'things', like colour, edge, shape, form. And so on.
As for 'consciousness', if I understand what the mystics are alluding to, the very fabric of the universe is intelligent and conscious. A rock is conscious of 'rockness', and not much else. An atom is conscious of atomness, and intelligently seeks to transcend itself by joining with other atoms to create new, transcendent properties of 'moleculeness'. And so on... all the way up to biological 'cells', 'bodies', 'sensation', 'feelings', 'thoughts', 'mystical visions', etc.
Feel sorry for them? I mean, what does it matter? If they are happy and not harming anyone, then fine. But money doesn't make you happy, not permanently anyway. So they have to resort to showing off and so on, in vain attempts to make themselves feel better, coz, guess what, they've already got what many strive all their lives for, in pursuit of happyness. But are they happy? Has the dream delivered the promise? Or is it just ultimately empty, and then they die, like everyone else.
Yes. And on average we are not taught to seek and understand the points of view of others. The automatic tendency is to defend the point of view that one has come to have already.
And due to the inability of computers to interact in anything but strictly defined ways, the computing world has become an Either/Or battle. But I think we are at a turning point, and that in the future any systems that cannot inter-operate into a greater whole will be annexed off the main evolutionary path.
MS has defeated much competition, but this was competition on a particular level. The next level is about integrating, so only those systems that can "increase their depth" to reach the next level will survive, and dominate. (???)
Yes, I agree with you there. I too found myself saying "What the f***" when I heard that the Navy was using NT, and I'm not even an American. What I'm alluding to is a historical Chinese idea, regarding how do deal with invaders. It goes like this: Put up no resistance, allow them to come in, and settle. The invading army then take up residence, marry locals, join local families, and have children. And after a generation or two, the "invaders" have been "assimilated". End of story. Mind you China is very big, so assimilation may work better there. The sheer mass of the people. I don't mean the oppressive Government system, as they seem to use "education" as their weapon.
The way to get rid of Microsoft is to roll over and play dead. Ever wonder what the Borg were actually going to DO once they took over the universe? I mean, they would have attained perfection, but perfection is unnatainable, so they themselves must be the imperfect...
Is this not very sly of M$? Adopting the most popular (XML) and turning it on their chosen target (CORBA)?
So it is that good warriors take their stand on ground where they cannot lose, and do not overlook conditions that make an opponent prone to defeat. - Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"
Can anyone confirm/deny the validity of this claim/FUD: But most companies use CORBA-based technologies grudgingly: the technology is difficult to master and tricky to implement.
And just what is the nature of the M$ code? Sun's Lee said while SOAP supports XML and HTTP, the protocol, as it stands, does have some proprietary software code because it was developed mostly by Microsoft.
I'm losing all respect for TIME magazine. If I read it right, they say that because IE is around, and competing with them, then they should be snappy to release, and that their failure to do so already, plainly shows that they've given up.
*Well*, I guess then that with Win2000/NT5 whatever being late, with so many other OS's out there or on the way, means that M$ has given up, abandoned it's OS, never going to release it...
"Dear TIME journalist, boy do I have a scoop for you..."
Like, IBM should be IBM and not somebody else, I agree. So we have to protect the identity. But maybe the problem is that the identity is arbitrary... "Int.Bus.Machines" is just so non specific. In the old days, people made themselves unique by stating place of origin... like Jesus of Nazareth, or Leonardo da Vinci. So maybe: "Linux of Finland". Maybe a "brand name" should be legally defined to require inclusion of something inherently non copyable. I mean, it's a big planet, and the namespace for brands is just getting more cluttered. Using physical location may be one answer, like in the EU now I believe they are rulling on food labelling: "English Butter" really does have to be made in England.
Slashdot Mirror
KDE and GNOME are severely lacking design.
Evidence that nobody ever thought of designing the interface:
1. There are menus on the windows, the window title bars, the desktop, the 'start' icon, and even at the top of the desktop.
(yes, GNOME, Enlightenment and X are three separate entities, and so coders think they each deserve their own independent menus... but this is just lumping it all together... this is not design!)
2. Hundreds of damned cryptic commands, pertaining to different functions/systems, all lumped together across many directories.
(you haven't got a real gui until every single last one of them has it's own individual icon and help description available through the file browser, with clear distinctions between apps, system/os components, and shared resources... this is how your grandmother will learn to be comfortable with the computer....
3. Oh, and get rid of the 'start' menu. Lumping everything in a hierarchical menu is just awful. If the file browser was better you wouldn't need a menu to find things.
(MS has made the start menu their 'trademark', which means they had to stick it on WinCE, which is just terrible... all that precious screen space wasted on a menu bar, who's task bar is useless because it was designed to work horizontally on a 17" monitor... this is puking awful 'design'.)
But maybe it's already too late for Linux and X, given their historically justified reasonings and forms. I mean, is it actually possible to solve/design in points 1 and 2 above? I suspect not.
Yes, I do *suspect* that the big corp wants to lock out their competitors. Yes, they *propably* have strategies for promoting their own services and protocols. Yes, their strategy *probably* encompasses internet access by the masses. Yes, big corps *probably* want a monopoly, which looks like restricting your *need* to make a choice.
Yes, it *looks* like it's your own choice to buy these things. Yes, having someone say you *should not* buy them looks like an infringement on your *sence* of freedom. Yes, the free market *looks* free.
OK, now that I've tried to see your points of view, let me point out some subtleties/obvious points:
Games/life (ie. any human activity) is more fun for everybody when played with fair rules. So we have rules for driving, aimed (I hope) at making the flow of traffic safer and more efficient. I am *free* to go when it is green *if* everyone else obeys the stop-if-red rule.
So, within reasonably FAIR rules, I have MORE freedom.
Regarding free markets... someone dropping a bomb on my head is a violation of my freedom to live. The people that *made* the bombs, *sold* the bombs, and *transported* the bombs have *responsability* for my death. (Note that I stop there. I do not include the manufacturers of the cars that the bomb factory workers used to drive to work.)
The FREE MARKET concept usually *sounds* good.... but it gets more credit than it's worth, simply because someone stuck the word *FREE* on it. What other people are supposedly free to sell, does affect me. And the environment. So we have rules about asbestos and DDT. They cause direct, unavoidable harm if used... in many cases.
Does a playstation cause harm?
First, notice how *seductive* it is. Second, notice it's aimed mainly at children. Does a child, or adult, really have a *choice* about *wanting* one?
I'm talking will power here... like the will of a scientist to forego fame for the sake of not devising some new cunning weapon. I *think* a playstation can be looked at from the 'temptation' angle. Which is why some people, like Hobbex, can *reasonably* observe that consumers are VICTIMS.
But does a playstation cause harm?
I am tempted by chocolate and maybe I get fat. But being a bit overweight (not including obesity) is not immediately life threatening... but does a playstation have potential for 'damage'?
Are there studies on brain development and computer games...?
I'm not advocating that fat people sue chocolate manufacturers. And I am in *favour* of the people who quit working for companies that make drinks targetted at kids that contain way too much sugar.
Smokers, on the other hand, are victims, in the *sence* that they were actively seduced *while* the companies knew, and witheld, the knowledge of it's harm. Notice I don't say smoking (in private) should be banned...
I agree with warning people that the internet has potentials that we would be wise not to squander. Take for example transportation:
car looks convenient, so
more cars + less busses,
but then too much traffic,
so try to give up car,
but can't
because busses are too run down, which is like saying:
We need MS Windows because everyone else has poor market share.
Yes, we are free to buy these games consoles, but are they in our best long term interests? Perhaps we have already learn't our lesson with Windows.
My PPC isn't going to run their distribution. Contributing their work to an already established one, say RedHat, which LinuxPPC is based on, would have allowed me and other PPC users to benefit.
I'm not a newbie, and I'm not a Guru. I'm not a sysadmin, but I would'nt mind learning.
.configs have different syntax, but to 'standardise' is to not evolve.
One of the beauties of open source OS is that every component is accessible. It can be configured exquisitely (if you know how, which I don't). Now imagine having ten different ways to configure a batch of stuff, none of which work quite right. Well, now you're thinking like an MS engineer.
Something should only need to be said ONCE, and right now the config files are the ultimate authority. It's like when you want to complain about something; you ask to see the Manager, not the teaboy. GUIs are like the teaboy... friendly but only do simple things. They have no power.
Yes the config files are idiosyncratic. But hell, Windows is idiosincraptic. Over time perhaps, syntax could be pruned, but ooonly by the respective authors, contributors etc. Let people tend their own garden. If they want to simplify, fine, but don't exclude people just because they invent clever ways of saying things!
So that's two issues: that config tools are never the real authority, and can (and will) get out of synch, and that the
The third and _separate_ issue is The User. We often talk as if there are only two kinds of users, like the novice and the expert. But really there's a whole spectrum of semi to skilled user 'levels' in between. Our documentation doesn't reflect that. You're either a Dummy (insert hot poker in security hole here) or an expert. And with today's documentation, the leap from newbie to sysadmin is like a great chasm.
I think that's a big problem against adoption.
People at home have to be their own sysadmins, to some degree. The GUI install may get your system up, but it won't teach you anything. Nor should it. You know from your own experience, that you learn best when you _need_ to learn. Say you want to buy a printer for your system. Where do you start? If all you see before you is fog, you drive slowly. If the road is clear, you race ahead. Starting with Linux documentation is very very foggy.
This problem comes from the exclusive use of text based description (how long does it take to read _every_ man page, or even books ?).
I am appalled at the lack of _diagrams_. Sequential statements are fine for programmers but when a person arrives in any foreign city the first thing they do is purchase a MAP. This is why the mac _tends_ to work; because the map is fairly clean and accurate. This is why Windows doesn't; because what the GUI is trying to map is fucked up anyway.
With a MAP of systems, that point to maps of subsystems, which hilight general behaviours, and ultimately (for those in need when fsck suddenly starts complaining) individual executables, configs, scripts and the data formats being dealt with, willing users can educate themselves as needed. Our docs need to show the big picture, quickly and clearly, and where to find the detail when needed.
But I couldn't find answers because I didn't know the questions.
I would love to know what every file was used in concert for, including where to go when I needed to know subsystems in detail. If I knew, I would draw a map. A map is what I call a "graphical" install. GUI installs are just a quicker way to hell (let me do what I don't know I'm doing faster).
Instead, I want a wholistic, fine grained, system encompassing map (an actual drawing) that can guide you wherever you want to go.
Yes, and without that it would not be a mac. I am glad the incomplete Appearance themes were Steved, because the inconsistency would have irritated me. That was a design decision, by someone who values UI design... not just eye candy but Form and Function.
Of the plethora of shareware extensions available for the mac, very few actually improve the interface (IMHO). It's not a bad design, and of course it's not easily configurable like nix WMs.
There's the story of the architect of a glass office block who selected window blinds that only had two settings.. fully open or fully closed, because he didn't want people messing up the aesthetics of his facade. I think that's going too far, but does show that design requires a 'Nazi' mentality. (Hitler originally wanted to be an architect).
If what you value is configurability, then that's fine and don't trash MacOS for not having it. It's not meant to have it. There are other systems that are designed to be flexible, and those can be compared on how well that design objective was achieved. Flexibility is quite hard to build into a system, especially when the ultimate in flexibility would be to just give people a book on windowing systems and a copy of egcs.
Yes, Windows is a mess, and that's my main problem with it. Its a mess for the reasons you give.
Linux is consistent, as you say, and with hunting and investigating, it's secrets can be discovered. But could we not make something that made the process of discovery faster? At the moment discovering the complexity is hard, so maybe we could work on making it 'easy' to find out what you need to know?
I wish people would stop perpetuating the myth that Windows is EASY. It is not easy. Easy is when you don't need books on it anymore. Easy is when you don't have conflicts installing stuff. Easy is when software upgrades contain fewer features AND more power.
I think that there are just some things that Linux has not yet available. That doesn't make it a harder OS, just a less complete one..
Complexity/depth is not a sin, and preserving it is not elitist. And at the same time, making it easy for people new to computers is not 'selling out'. For example, the Japanes game 'Go' is very simple, so newcomers can start playing very quickly, as there are just a few rules. But players can keep playing and develop their skill to a high masters level. Linux has the amazing value of being open, so the potential is there for becoming an advanced guru, if one so desires. At the moment that seems to take a very long time. But can't we speed this up? All that is needed is a way to make the depth more easily accessible cognitively.
A sort of map of the systems, ways of representing the complex concepts of what is going on, in a way that new users could slowly absorb. It's not about dumbing things down. It's about making the obscure more clear.
FYI spelling is not a strong point among many types of creative professionals. You remind me of the judge in Ally McBeal who checks the oral higene of councel. You are indeed manifesting sloppyness in your own thinking and critical faculties, by making spelling and neatness the basis of your most important decisions. Please listen (this is a communication skill) when I say that there are different styles of thought and cognition, and your judgement about the 'right' way only betrays to others your inability to see other viewpoints, ie. other ways of seeing. If you can't see other's ways, then YOU can't communicate.
Yes, you're right. It's interesting you say I make things complicated... It's kinda a habit of mine...
But if the computer only knows that it's an action to be performed by me, then how will it know when to remind me?
I'm sitting in my car on the way to work and my PDA says "Dave, I really think you should take out the trash now".
And CAD users. There are some things that need 'pointing', like drawing. But it's constant annoyance having to move the pointer away from the drawing, to navigate through a nest of icon palettes or menus just to change between line tool and arc tool. Simple speech recognition would be marvelous.
Then there are cases where a script would be nice, like for an architectural drawing, 'change all 700 mm doors to 900 mm' - easy to say, but a hunt and click nightmare -- I mean, scrolling, clicking, dialog boxes, more dialogs etc. You shouldn't even need to SEE the drawing to do that one.
Today we have a range of possible modes of interacting - CLI, script, pointing, speech -- and OO models that should be comfortable integrating them all, on a user-need basis.
And it would be really nice to see it happen. At a firm of architects, we changed from CLI driven GDS cad system on PR1ME, to MicroGDS on Windows. After a while it became apparent that it was slower to use. We asked the ISV if they were going to add a CLI. They said that the way it was coded for windows, it was darn near impossible to do. Excuse me?
I'm really interested to know how a computer can process meaning without having experience of the 'things' that make up our world.
Telling the computer to "remind me to take out the trash" may not work - does the computer not need it's own experience of 'trash' and 'out' ?
Our symbols refer to experiential contexts, so maybe AI language efforts have to begin with giving the machine better inputs. Then code basic 'things', like colour, edge, shape, form. And so on.
As for 'consciousness', if I understand what the mystics are alluding to, the very fabric of the universe is intelligent and conscious. A rock is conscious of 'rockness', and not much else. An atom is conscious of atomness, and intelligently seeks to transcend itself by joining with other atoms to create new, transcendent properties of 'moleculeness'. And so on... all the way up to biological 'cells', 'bodies', 'sensation', 'feelings', 'thoughts', 'mystical visions', etc.
Er, ok, I have. Point taken. I have no sence of humor sometimes!
So if you bought everything, have you considered where you would put it all?
:-)
I mean, if you owned EVERYTHING, you'd have to leave it all just where it is.
Feel sorry for them? I mean, what does it matter? If they are happy and not harming anyone, then fine. But money doesn't make you happy, not permanently anyway. So they have to resort to showing off and so on, in vain attempts to make themselves feel better, coz, guess what, they've already got what many strive all their lives for, in pursuit of happyness. But are they happy? Has the dream delivered the promise? Or is it just ultimately empty, and then they die, like everyone else.
Sounds like he feels low for not being rich, and is trying to make his readers feel low too. There was a nice, smug looking photo of him though. :P
Yes. And on average we are not taught to seek and understand the points of view of others. The automatic tendency is to defend the point of view that one has come to have already.
And due to the inability of computers to interact in anything but strictly defined ways, the computing world has become an Either/Or battle. But I think we are at a turning point, and that in the future any systems that cannot inter-operate into a greater whole will be annexed off the main evolutionary path.
MS has defeated much competition, but this was competition on a particular level. The next level is about integrating, so only those systems that can "increase their depth" to reach the next level will survive, and dominate. (???)
Yes, I agree with you there. I too found myself saying "What the f***" when I heard that the Navy was using NT, and I'm not even an American. What I'm alluding to is a historical Chinese idea, regarding how do deal with invaders. It goes like this: Put up no resistance, allow them to come in, and settle. The invading army then take up residence, marry locals, join local families, and have children. And after a generation or two, the "invaders" have been "assimilated". End of story. Mind you China is very big, so assimilation may work better there. The sheer mass of the people. I don't mean the oppressive Government system, as they seem to use "education" as their weapon.
What I mean is, without anything to kill, all their force would just dissipate.
Microsoft would just fizzle. We make the sacrifice of having 5 years of Windows EVERYWHERE, and then just watch it die.
The way to get rid of Microsoft is to roll over and play dead. Ever wonder what the Borg were actually going to DO once they took over the universe? I mean, they would have attained perfection, but perfection is unnatainable, so they themselves must be the imperfect...
Is this not very sly of M$?
Adopting the most popular (XML) and turning it on their chosen target (CORBA)?
So it is that good warriors take their stand on ground where they cannot lose, and do not overlook conditions that make an opponent prone to defeat. - Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"
Can anyone confirm/deny the validity of this claim/FUD:
But most companies use CORBA-based technologies grudgingly: the technology is difficult to master and tricky to implement.
And just what is the nature of the M$ code?
Sun's Lee said while SOAP supports XML and HTTP, the protocol, as it stands, does have some proprietary software code because it was developed mostly by Microsoft.
Gee, the temperature on these treads is really very cool and comfortable.
/.
Nothing to argue about.
Gregorian Chants - kinda makes time dissapear, makes me feel like what I'm doing has purpose and discipline, er, even if it's just reading
I'm losing all respect for TIME magazine. If I read it right, they say that because IE is around, and competing with them, then they should be snappy to release, and that their failure to do so already, plainly shows that they've given up.
*Well*, I guess then that with Win2000/NT5 whatever being late, with so many other OS's out there or on the way, means that M$ has given up, abandoned it's OS, never going to release it...
"Dear TIME journalist, boy do I have a scoop for you..."
What is all this crazyness about?
Like, IBM should be IBM and not somebody else, I agree. So we have to protect the identity. But maybe the problem is that the identity is arbitrary... "Int.Bus.Machines" is just so non specific.
In the old days, people made themselves unique by stating place of origin... like Jesus of Nazareth, or Leonardo da Vinci. So maybe: "Linux of Finland". Maybe a "brand name" should be legally defined to require inclusion of something inherently non copyable. I mean, it's a big planet, and the namespace for brands is just getting more cluttered.
Using physical location may be one answer, like in the EU now I believe they are rulling on food labelling: "English Butter" really does have to be made in England.
"Nobody on the planet knows why we are here"