There's another big element of documentation that should always be hard-copy-- the troubleshooting/repair section. With tools like utilities and operating systems, there is the possibility that the machine will be so messed up as to prevent easy perusal of online docs, regardless of format.
This may not be a perfect analogy, but I once had a machine that came with only online manuals. I ended up having to print out the needed sections of the manual on a cheapo dotmatrix printer to do an upgrade. The maker could have probably produced those same pages for less than I could, and in a higher quality.
I would like to see how much those cheap game CDs would sell for with real docs-- unless they're heavily cutting the price, it's not worth it.
Not entirely true. At the low end, Linux is increasingly useless. A distro like Slack 4.0 doesn't run well on (say) even a 386/40 with 8M of RAM, while Minix 2.0 is surprisingly smooth on a 286/16 with 1M, and tolerable on a 640K Turbo XT.
At this time, the Linux/8086 port is crummy at best (it kept producing inexplicable disc errors for me)-- why use that for a small system when Minix works, works well, and works well TODAY?
Furthermore, I believe he noted that the lawyers held it up for two years. If it had gone as intended, this would be the free-software breakthrough of 1998. It's unfair to blame him for it being this late.
Congratulations, Mr. Tannenbaum. You've done well.
I do not debate your claim that the CPU design itself is probably copyrighted. If I tried to fab some Pentium 120s in the local pizza oven, I should expect to be sued. However, the instruction set itself is not necessarily copyrighted. Considering that it has been restated many times over in documentation, I doubt they can claim any ownership over it anymore, if they ever did.
If Intel had such a powerful claim with regards to the x86 architecture, do you think I could be sending this from a K6-2 today?
Could someone who's tried it already tell me if 4.0's ati driver is as fast as the 3.3.x Mach64 one, and if it still does the "I don't draw my Blackbox close-boxes right" thing that 3.3.x did on my RagePro at least?
"A specific embedded app?" There's so much more. Most users only handle one application at a time because that's the limit of attention divisibility. In such cases, a single-tasking equivalent (with TSRs providing functions for background tools) can be as productive in less resources. Besides-- why should I wait for a full multitasking environment to come up if all I want is to edit a text file?
By the time you've gotten enough familiarity with the source material to understand/enjoy items like "User Friendly", you've either spent a lot of time studying for a little effort, or you've achieved some competency with computers. Either way, being able to enjoy the strip is a reward for your efforts to learn-- like those Honour Society doodads they give at schools, but much funnier.
Furthermore, not all the strips focus on making fun of users, and some of those that do are providing a basic lesson in computer sensibilities (don't ask stupid questions) in a funny way.
Unfortunately, it's iffy if it could run. Unless we can get the U. S. to annex Finland retroactively, Torvalds can't be President (not born in the U. S.). However, that in no way precludes his running for God.
Even if you had "one that is really good", you'd end up with a dozen forks to the project in a few weeks' time (as with the fvwm code in xfwm, afterstep, and mlvwm IIRC). Each user has a slightly different set of preferences, and to address them all in one package would require an extremely complex, configurable programme (like Enlightenment) or ignoring anything contrary to the intended development direction. As with Linux distributions, diversity is strength-- if my tastes change (I recall being a Window Maker addict until I realized how much memory it used) or development stops on one package, I can probably find another I'd like almost as much or perhaps even more. IceWM is a decent product on its own-- quite flexible for the size, and the configuration is less complex than fvwm2, although I'll admit it doesn't scream "Look at me! I'm a *ix/X11 desktop!". In a way, it does fufill an unsatisfied niche-- I've never seen much of an OS/2 3.0 look or a really good taskbar elsewhere.
I had one of those M560TG boards (ALI IV/TXpro based)-- it ran Linux quite well, presumably as there was no integrated bilge. I miss it in some ways, as I liked the five PCI slots and three DIMM sockets; big problem I had with it was the terribly stiff memory sockets. You could snap the board trying to get a DIMM in. It was still more reliable under Linux (with a K6/250/83) than Win95.
It wouldn't be hard for them to make Linux-compatible mainboards... just keep away from the integrated stuff, or if they have any access to specs, provide drivers. I don't think PCChimps though needs to worry about embarrassing themselves much more by shipping incompatible equipment-- they're already known as the $48 mainboard company-- and that's a risk though.
>K7 has gotta by the most over-hyped, under >specified chip I've seen yet.
No.... that would be the Transmeta whatever-the-hell-it-is/will be.
>Alpha's are gonna be cheaper than K-63's >by mid-summer. (250$ range)
Don't get me wrong, I am impressed by the Alphas too... but there's also the cost of a mainboard-- a K6-III will run in some older boards; and Socket 7 is easier to find and probably cheaper than Alpha socket [does it have a name?] I wonder which is cheaper with both factors figured. Not to mention the price of an Alpha Linux CD to replace the x86 one I have already...
This is just me, but I'm not sure how great it is as a mascot.... a dragon that cute and cartoonish looks silly and nondraconic; and to show a believably fierce dragon would probably not sell well as a friendly mascot.... perhaps something else would have worked better. A cruel, evil Troll [Tech] maybe?
The problem is one of market-share. Some stuff will be rather difficult to reverse-engineer or design compatible equals to. Others are simply not worth the bother. By allowing emulation, the end-user gets the best of all worlds: Impressive open-source software, without having to dispose of their commercial stuff until there's an equal.
There are several problems-- 1. They're not affordable enough, yet. When I bought my parallel-port one [~1 month ago], it was that for US$39.99 [w/o rebate] or the cheapest SCSI ones for about 100. When it's $39.99 v. $39.99, the incentive to go parallel-port is gone. 2. They aren't as readily available. A great number of the scanners, esp. at the consumer stores, are parallel-port. Same in most advertising. 3. Because they're the high-end devices, they're often more than someone needs/wants/will pay for. I wanted a replacement for an old, nonsupported handscanner, and this did essentially what it did, only in a convinent flatbed. 4. I don't need my kernel further enlarged with a driver for an SCSI card for one device on an all-IDE system, nor the loss of another slot; ideal solutions are ones that require the least bother in many cases.
What I don't get is why one manufacturer doesn't capitalize on the linux market, singlehandedly claiming 90% of the cheap-scanners-for-Linux market and differentiating its product from all the other cheap scanners, by throwing together a driver and slapping a penguin on the box. Even a binary-only driver might be stomachable if it would get support.
Slashdot Mirror
There's another big element of documentation that should always be hard-copy-- the troubleshooting/repair section. With tools like utilities and operating systems, there is the possibility that the machine will be so messed up as to prevent easy perusal of online docs, regardless of format.
This may not be a perfect analogy, but I once had a machine that came with only online manuals. I ended up having to print out the needed sections of the manual on a cheapo dotmatrix printer to do an upgrade. The maker could have probably produced those same pages for less than I could, and in a higher quality.
I would like to see how much those cheap game CDs would sell for with real docs-- unless they're heavily cutting the price, it's not worth it.
Not entirely true. At the low end, Linux is increasingly useless. A distro like Slack 4.0 doesn't run well on (say) even a 386/40 with 8M of RAM, while Minix 2.0 is surprisingly smooth on a 286/16 with 1M, and tolerable on a 640K Turbo XT.
At this time, the Linux/8086 port is crummy at best (it kept producing inexplicable disc errors for me)-- why use that for a small system when Minix works, works well, and works well TODAY?
Furthermore, I believe he noted that the lawyers held it up for two years. If it had gone as intended, this would be the free-software breakthrough of 1998. It's unfair to blame him for it being this late.
Congratulations, Mr. Tannenbaum. You've done well.
I do not debate your claim that the CPU design itself is probably copyrighted. If I tried to fab some Pentium 120s in the local pizza oven, I should expect to be sued. However, the instruction set itself is not necessarily copyrighted. Considering that it has been restated many times over in documentation, I doubt they can claim any ownership over it anymore, if they ever did.
If Intel had such a powerful claim with regards to the x86 architecture, do you think I could be sending this from a K6-2 today?
Could someone who's tried it already tell me if 4.0's ati driver is as fast as the 3.3.x Mach64 one, and if it still does the "I don't draw my Blackbox close-boxes right" thing that 3.3.x did on my RagePro at least?
"A specific embedded app?" There's so much more. Most users only handle one application at a time because that's the limit of attention divisibility. In such cases, a single-tasking equivalent (with TSRs providing functions for background tools) can be as productive in less resources.
Besides-- why should I wait for a full multitasking environment to come up if all I want is to edit a text file?
By the time you've gotten enough familiarity with the source material to understand/enjoy items like "User Friendly", you've either spent a lot of time studying for a little effort, or you've achieved some competency with computers. Either way, being able to enjoy the strip is a reward for your efforts to learn-- like those Honour Society doodads they give at schools, but much funnier.
Furthermore, not all the strips focus on making fun of users, and some of those that do are providing a basic lesson in computer sensibilities (don't ask stupid questions) in a funny way.
Unfortunately, it's iffy if it could run. Unless we can get the U. S. to annex Finland retroactively, Torvalds can't be President (not born in the U. S.). However, that in no way precludes his running for God.
Even if you had "one that is really good", you'd end up with a dozen forks to the project in a few weeks' time (as with the fvwm code in xfwm, afterstep, and mlvwm IIRC). Each user has a slightly different set of preferences, and to address them all in one package would require an extremely complex, configurable programme (like Enlightenment) or ignoring anything contrary to the intended development direction. As with Linux distributions, diversity is strength-- if my tastes change (I recall being a Window Maker addict until I realized how much memory it used) or development stops on one package, I can probably find another I'd like almost as much or perhaps even more. IceWM is a decent product on its own-- quite flexible for the size, and the configuration is less complex than fvwm2, although I'll admit it doesn't scream "Look at me! I'm a *ix/X11 desktop!". In a way, it does fufill an unsatisfied niche-- I've never seen much of an OS/2 3.0 look or a really good taskbar elsewhere.
I had one of those M560TG boards (ALI IV/TXpro based)-- it ran Linux quite well, presumably as there was no integrated bilge. I miss it in some ways, as I liked the five PCI slots and three DIMM sockets; big problem I had with it was the terribly stiff memory sockets. You could snap the board trying to get a DIMM in. It was still more reliable under Linux (with a K6/250/83) than Win95.
It wouldn't be hard for them to make Linux-compatible mainboards... just keep away from the integrated stuff, or if they have any access to specs, provide drivers. I don't think PCChimps though needs to worry about embarrassing themselves much more by shipping incompatible equipment-- they're already known as the $48 mainboard company-- and that's a risk though.
>K7 has gotta by the most over-hyped, under
>specified chip I've seen yet.
No.... that would be the Transmeta whatever-the-hell-it-is/will be.
>Alpha's are gonna be cheaper than K-63's
>by mid-summer. (250$ range)
Don't get me wrong, I am impressed by the Alphas too... but there's also the cost of a mainboard-- a K6-III will run in some older boards; and Socket 7 is easier to find and probably cheaper than Alpha socket [does it have a name?] I wonder which is cheaper with both factors figured. Not to mention the price of an Alpha Linux CD to replace the x86 one I have already...
This is just me, but I'm not sure how great it is as a mascot.... a dragon that cute and cartoonish looks silly and nondraconic; and to show a believably fierce dragon would probably not sell well as a friendly mascot.... perhaps something else would have worked better. A cruel, evil Troll [Tech] maybe?
The problem is one of market-share. Some stuff will be rather difficult to reverse-engineer or design compatible equals to. Others are simply not worth the bother. By allowing emulation, the end-user gets the best of all worlds: Impressive open-source software, without having to dispose of their commercial stuff until there's an equal.
>... and also supported, I believe.
There are several problems--
1. They're not affordable enough, yet. When I bought my parallel-port one [~1 month ago], it was that for US$39.99 [w/o rebate] or the cheapest SCSI ones for about 100. When it's $39.99 v. $39.99, the incentive to go parallel-port is gone.
2. They aren't as readily available. A great number of the scanners, esp. at the consumer stores, are parallel-port. Same in most advertising.
3. Because they're the high-end devices, they're often more than someone needs/wants/will pay for. I wanted a replacement for an old, nonsupported handscanner, and this did essentially what it did, only in a convinent flatbed.
4. I don't need my kernel further enlarged with a driver for an SCSI card for one device on an all-IDE system, nor the loss of another slot; ideal solutions are ones that require the least bother in many cases.
What I don't get is why one manufacturer doesn't capitalize on the linux market, singlehandedly claiming 90% of the cheap-scanners-for-Linux market and differentiating its product from all the other cheap scanners, by throwing together a driver and slapping a penguin on the box. Even a binary-only driver might be stomachable if it would get support.