Longstaff is absolutely right. As long as we have to live in a capitalist system where profit motive must necessarily come before creativity if one is to survive, true freedom of expression will always be stifled.
Awful, awful, awful.
Woo-hoo. Raskin just re-invented the "Internet PC." And we all know that went over like a lead zeppelin.
Simply put -- the incredible variety of software out there means users can tailor their computer's capabilities to fit their needs. That fact is what makes the PC fundamentally revolutionary:
In the days of mainframes, only large corporations and research universities had access to computing power. With the PC revolution, that power was put into Joe Public's hands. This radical democratization of data processing meant that ordinary citizens could harness heretofore unheard-of computing power to do whatever they wanted. Having this kind of choice is a fundamental democratic principle -- it's YOUR computer, YOU decide what it does. And no company can force a particular capability (or lack thereof) down your throat.
(I need not point out that Free Software only carries these principals to their ultimate and logical conclusion)
So, being able to decide what programs to run, what peripherals to attach, etc. is fundamental to computing in a democratic society, right? Well, Raskin's suggestions seem to fly in the face of that. Would your "computer(tm)" come preconfigured with "Word Processor(tm)" and "Web Browser(tm)" and whatever else the vendor deemed saleable, giving the end user no choice over software at all? Would the user still purchase/download/write software and then be subjected to a long and drawn-out but "intuitive" configuration process?
Those sound like horrible options. A computer, like any other tool, requires a certain amount of learning to be able to use. That's a fact, and users must accept it. Would you buy a car with no steering wheel, just a set of buttons that said "supermarket" and "grandma's house"? Of course not. But with some instruction and a fair bit of practice, most people become proficient drivers fairly quickly. They won't win a NASCAR race, but they can get to the supermarket or Grandma's house on their own. And Apple proved that the same principle could apply to computers: you still have to learn how to use them, but given a well-designed and intuitive OS you can achieve a working level of proficiency quickly, without much difficulty.
The best OS-alternative I've heard of is the web-appliance-type strategy, where the browser is the OS and every app runs in a JVM. But such things have been tried, and have almost universally failed. Perhaps their time has not yet come; personally, though, I'll stick with OS X on a G4.
For once, I completely agree with a/. posting. I have never played any video game more fun and addictive than the original Zelda... except maybe the original Rampage (hey, who doesn't want to become a giant monster and terrorize cities across the U.S.?). And while 3D games don't make me motion-sick, I know plenty of people who can't so much as watch someone's Playstation from across the room without fighting to suppress the urge to vomit. New technology may make games look better, but it's no substitute for a great idea well-executed!
Slashdot Mirror
Longstaff is absolutely right. As long as we have to live in a capitalist system where profit motive must necessarily come before creativity if one is to survive, true freedom of expression will always be stifled.
Simply put -- the incredible variety of software out there means users can tailor their computer's capabilities to fit their needs. That fact is what makes the PC fundamentally revolutionary:
In the days of mainframes, only large corporations and research universities had access to computing power. With the PC revolution, that power was put into Joe Public's hands. This radical democratization of data processing meant that ordinary citizens could harness heretofore unheard-of computing power to do whatever they wanted. Having this kind of choice is a fundamental democratic principle -- it's YOUR computer, YOU decide what it does. And no company can force a particular capability (or lack thereof) down your throat.
(I need not point out that Free Software only carries these principals to their ultimate and logical conclusion)
So, being able to decide what programs to run, what peripherals to attach, etc. is fundamental to computing in a democratic society, right? Well, Raskin's suggestions seem to fly in the face of that. Would your "computer(tm)" come preconfigured with "Word Processor(tm)" and "Web Browser(tm)" and whatever else the vendor deemed saleable, giving the end user no choice over software at all? Would the user still purchase/download/write software and then be subjected to a long and drawn-out but "intuitive" configuration process?
Those sound like horrible options. A computer, like any other tool, requires a certain amount of learning to be able to use. That's a fact, and users must accept it. Would you buy a car with no steering wheel, just a set of buttons that said "supermarket" and "grandma's house"? Of course not. But with some instruction and a fair bit of practice, most people become proficient drivers fairly quickly. They won't win a NASCAR race, but they can get to the supermarket or Grandma's house on their own. And Apple proved that the same principle could apply to computers: you still have to learn how to use them, but given a well-designed and intuitive OS you can achieve a working level of proficiency quickly, without much difficulty.
The best OS-alternative I've heard of is the web-appliance-type strategy, where the browser is the OS and every app runs in a JVM. But such things have been tried, and have almost universally failed. Perhaps their time has not yet come; personally, though, I'll stick with OS X on a G4.
There's hope for Nader after all...
Is it true Exodus is owned by the Church of Scientology? Apparently this was not a factor in /.'s choice of ISP...
For once, I completely agree with a /. posting. I have never played any video game more fun and addictive than the original Zelda... except maybe the original Rampage (hey, who doesn't want to become a giant monster and terrorize cities across the U.S.?). And while 3D games don't make me motion-sick, I know plenty of people who can't so much as watch someone's Playstation from across the room without fighting to suppress the urge to vomit. New technology may make games look better, but it's no substitute for a great idea well-executed!