I think that was the point -- the Joker even commented that the descent to madness takes just a little push. That's what the hospital scene was -- Harvey was holding it together even through everything that happened until a little push, then his whole personality crumbled around him.
I guess if you disagree with the premise "madness takes just a little push" as I do, then that explains why I found the movie from that point on to be almost silly.
I just don't think anyone who believes "madness takes just a little push" has much real-world experience with madness. The truth is that humanity on the whole is amazingly durable; which is why they right books about madness (because it is the notable exception).
The difference between a moral failing or error in judgment, even frequent ones, and "madness" is a great distance.
As best I can tell, he gave him purpose. Dent was crushed by the loss of his love, his loss of control, and his disfigurement
I enjoyed the movie; and I generally enjoy blow-em-up superhero movies.
But my grievance with comic book movies (and growing with each one) is the everyone is a moral twit.
This guy Dent dedicates his life to taking out bad guys by-the-book and is consitently portrayed as a good guy... then his fiance is murdered and he flips sides based on the advice of the guy responsible for her death??? Come on! Bogus. Do comic book writers/readers really believe a person is that morally fungable? His whole concept of self and morality was bound up with this one relationship? How adolescent. That really was the major minus for me for the whole movie.
Comic book writers need to get out more and talk to the myriad people who come from hellish circumstances and have terrible things happen to them, and put pretty fortunate guys like me to shame. People aren't that pathetic, certainly not people who make it as far as Mr. Dent.
And the Joker is killing people at right and left and the cops just want to roll over? A cop may be crooked and take a little cream - but this guy is hacking down mothers/children/fathers etc... like a lawn mower. A bunch of dead cops and they'd all want him on a stick.
And, yes, I get that batman doesn't kill people. But no way in all this escapades has he never killed anyone by accident - hit them too hard, caused a car crash, knocked something down on them, etc... no way. And yet he won't just stop the Joker (who is human flesh-and-blood, easily breakable) who is blowing up hospitals? Talk about a lack of moral center. At least break the freak's legs.
When the Joker was walking away from the hospital there wasn't one single person around with a gun while the guy was standing in the middle of the street? Try something like that in any given American city.
Again, I enjoyed the movie. And I'd have none of these complaints if it were for the numerous movies before it that bugged me the same way.
I love the fact Linux is dynamic, and open source. I really do. I don't like the fact that it doesn't seem to 'evolve'.
Doesn't evolve? Every single edition of GNOME is better than the last. I use openSUSE/GNOME on both my laptop and my workstation - everything works, and pretty-much has worked, for years.
Music playing, ripping, burning? yep Fancy 3d desktop? yep Printing? yep Mail, word processing, huge spreadsheets? yep
If LINUX doesn't work for you as a desktop, OK. But saying it doesn't "evolve" is baseless. Every edition has added new and interesting features. From Beagle and D-Bus to VPN support in the network manager and awesome bluetooth support (I can right click and send any file to my phone).
It works, and it rocks. I have no desire at all to switch to an over-priced and proprietary Mac.
You can know how to eat without knowing how to cook. It's silly to expect people to take time to learn how to cook before complaining that the Linux stew lacks something. But it's fair to ignore complainers who just say "it's bad" without giving anything useful.
Ditto!
There is a difference between constructive criticism and whining-on-your-blog. But both fall under the umbrella of "complaining".
They could spent 9 months learning the code, the build instructions, how it all fits together, creating their patch, testing their patch, submitting the patch, then hoping and praying that the project accepts the patch
There are projects that are that bad. Many are not.
Or they could put in a bug report than the project maintainer can fix in 5 minutes, since he's already done all that work.
Of course, the maintainer (assuming there is one, see below) doesn't have hundreds of other "5 minute" fixes.
Which one sounds more efficient?
The user fixing the bug is way more efficient. Then the user can add a new feature, close someone else's bug, etc... and then the Open Source model can actually work.
*OR* the user can contact the developer and offer remediation ($$$) to fix the bug. After all, what did you pay for the software?
Of course, the real problem is that (most) open source projects don't read their bug trackers, even if the public is putting in bugs. I estimate around 75% of the time the bug never even gets assigned.
This is certainly true, at least effectively. But I don't think it is actually because they don't read the bug database. I believe in most cases it is because there is no-one to read the bug database. I'd say that *easily* 75% of Open Source projects simply have no active maintainer. Maybe they have a mail-list minder, but no maintainer. I've tried to take-over maintainership of two small Open Source projects and not even been able to get a response from the current "maintainer" for that.
I've given up, and I'm sure I'm not alone on this.
Your not alone, I've talked to numerous others who share your opinion.
Complaining publicly about the bugs, preferably in a forum that the developers follow, is probably the most effective use of their time.
It is a waste of their time and usually just irritating. Go add comments to the bug-report rather than wasting your own time blogging on your BLOG no one significant will ever read. Personally, I advocate the old put-up or shut-up approach. Complaining is not constructive, when children do it it is called "whining".
I've fixed lots of bugs; sometimes it is really hard and sometimes it is really easy. I don't expect most end-users to become bug-fixers. I do expect users to report their problems in the correct forum (bug database or project mailing list) and in a constructive way.
Assuming the critics are actually knowledgable and perform substantive criticism. Otherwise developers should save their time an just ignore the constant stream of whining crap that composes most of the blog-o-sphere.
I *enjoy* LinuxHater, but it is primarily entertainment; like a comedian who mocks politicians. It is entertainment, nothing more. I don't agree with what he says anymore than I take what a comedian says about public policy seriously [doing either is would just be stupid].
.Not sending bounce messages reduces the load on the servers and net (now that most mail traffic bounces). Pretending to accept mail which is actually dropped is a defense against guessing email addresses and probing filters to see what gets past them.
Rejecting mail isn't the same as generating a bounce. Rejecting while the connection is open doesn't generate a bounce (unless the remote chooses to).
Accepting and dropping is a clear violation of the RFC. I don't care if it is done my Google, Microsoft, or anyone else. What happened to "do no evil", violating an RFC is evil.
I don't know about Yast, but Evolution isn't monolithic, it's megalithic. Or in other words, it's a big rock. Hardly, Evolution is very light weight.
This is why I use Thunderbird - it's superbloatware too, but you actually get something for your bloat. Yes, you get no calendar, crappy LDAP support, a very primitive address book, no memos, no Exchange connectivity, no to-do list, among other absent features.
But comparing the feature to resource utilization ratio is ridiculous - Evolution blows Thunderbird out of the water.
And neither of these clients is bloated, both are fairly light weight. Most claims of "bloat" come from people who don't know how to read the utilization stats like RSS correctly.
Article gets at least three things wrong
on
OpenSUSE 11.0 Released
·
· Score: 3, Informative
1. openSUSE doesn't need a new era, it is doing just fine.
2. The Microsoft pact hasn't alienated any of the community that matters. There are fundamentalists that gripe and whine and spit about every intellectual property issue that they *perceive* reduces openness. And there are people who write code. There isn't much overlap at all between the coder and the fundamentalist - so there whining and spitting should just be takes as the meaningless noise that it is.
3. Yast is *extremely* modular and not in the least bit monolithic - one just has to look at the Yast packages to know that. It even has multiple front-ends. This makes as much charge as the people who accuse Evolution of being monolithic (it a highly modular app that consists mostly of cooperating components). Another Yast plus is that it works and coverts almost all configuration issues right down to certificate management. That makes SuSE / openSUSE the only distro with a comprehensive management tool.
Depending on how things pan out, how does it fare for Tbird if the Exchange APIs are actually released and work? Outlook's muscle comes from the tight integration to Exchange. If I could use Thunderbird/Lightning but get all of the groupware benefits of Exchange, hopefully with improved Task handling...then I think they'd really be on to something! We already have an Open Source client with pretty good Exchange support - Evolution. I don't think the issue is with working with Exchange, it is with replacing Exchange's functionality (server side).
But anyway, the article is really about turning TB *NOT* into a groupware client but into a social networking client - Ugh!!!, IMO, but I'm sure there is a demographic for it.
Seriously, this just-use-webmail thing gets old. Webmail for the power user, or the road warrior, just doesn't work.
Then you have tasks (with workflow), calendaring, resource reservations, etc... but the google fanboys just don't believe anyone needs (or uses) that stuff.
I think Exchange integration is the big one that most other similar clients lack. Being able to schedule a meeting and have it show in a shared calendar, book rooms etc, its pretty much required by any decent sized organisation and I haven't seen anything that comes close to replacing it. Agree. OpenGroupware does that (server side).
I don't know why there isn't a good email client that uses a real database engine to store the data. Searching and sorting could be much quicker, and much more functional. Or it would be slower and less functional. Seriously, an SQL database is not the answer to all things. Effectively free-form and mostly text data doesn't match up the a database well at all. There are much more efficient ways to manage what is essentially text.
You also wouldn't have to worry about large email collection, as most DBs can handle quite a bit of data very well. Since it is all mostly BLOBs you might be surprised how badly it would perform.
The storage engine and the client could be developed separately, so different clients could be designed for different needs. And the storage engine could be located anywhere. We already have that - you just described IMAP. Modern servers like Cyrus IMAP index message headers and optionally message body so searching and features like virtual folders are lightning fast.
Thanks for the tip. Unfortunately, after spending the better part of a day digging through their site, docs, etc., it looks like it's missing a way to have multiple calendars for one user, and only through workarounds can you hack together calendar sharing. Looks like a promising project, though. Perhaps this is, in part, because the multiple calendars model is so amazingly stupid (and cumbersome from an end-user perspective). Use a groupware server that lets you categorize events and assign participants - in a single calendar model.
To do calendar sharing you really need a real backend be it Exchange, OpenGroupware, Citadel, Open-Exchange, etc...
I just wish they could get calendar / mail sync with portables going. That one single thing would be the difference in $GOBS spent on MS Office, Exchange, server hardware / OS, and just using Thunderbird + Sunbird, which (outside of that one feature) everybody here really likes. If you are in a client/server situation take a look at Funambol which syncs with many things including Outlook, Thunderbird, and PDAs. Either use simple filesystem backend to sync them all or one of the groupware servers that supports GroupDAV.
G-mail's searching is fast because it is indexed. If you want fast searching of your emails on your desktop, use a 'desktop search' client, such as the search indexer included in Vista. It is just as fast. Searching using the Cyrus IMAPd server is also wicked fast; as it can index full headers as well as message body. Searching folders with tens of thousands of messages is instantaneous.
Rules-based filtering is one reason I have switched to google apps, and I could never go back to a clients-based-only solution. With google apps, my spam filtering is server-side, and my rules-based filtering is server-side. Don't get me wrong, I still use Outlook as a mail client with gmail, and I love Outlook's rules-based filtering, but there are just some filters that wouldn't be useful to me if I couldn't do them at the server level in real time. Just as an aside; the Cyrus IMAPd server has provided very good server side filtering forever via SIEVE. Numerous apps, such as the Horde suite, provide very nice interfaces to SIEVE.
I agree that server side filter is dramatically more powerful than client side for many use-cases.
When words like "groupware" and "enterprise" start getting tossed around, you're doing the latter. You start adding features to satisfy line-items on some checklist that was constructed by interminable committee meetings among bureaucrats, and you're coding toward an externally-dictated product specification that maybe some company will want to buy a hundred "seats" of, but that nobody will ever love. With that kind of motivation, nobody will ever find it sexy. It won't make anyone happy. I use this article pretty regularly in presentations to point out flaws in the Open Source model, and as a prime example of idiocy itself.
End user's I deal with care allot about "workflow". Perhaps software on the home PC is about making people happy - at least for the small [yes, it is small] portion of the population that spends time every day on social networking sites and the like. But most of the software used every day is for the purpose of doing work.
I guess he would think a mail client that integrates with MySpace is a killer app.
If something comes down the pipe that can function as a drop-in replacement, I can see it getting used. Otherwise? Not likely. Exchange is excellent at what it does. Not likely. If you have Exchange you'll keep it, if you want Exchange your going to but Exchange and not a knock-off (which is all a works-exactly-like can even be). Both the possibility, and the wager on behalf of any user, that a knock-off will be 100% compatible will all the things that integrate to Exchange, and will *remain* 100% compatible is extremely bad odds.
So either a site is open to a not-Exchange-solution, like SOGo or OGo, or they want Exchange. Trying to *be* exchange wouldn't be either fun (from a developers point of view) or valuable (from a marketplace point of view). Having to be-Exchange eliminates innovation and customization.
And that products like OpenGroupware, Scalable OpenGroupware, Zimbra, and other exist (and do quite well) is testimonial to the fact that there is a marketplace for the not-Exchange. Especially as the world becomes less Windows, and more Web, focused (although I think that transition from local to network is often exaggerated by pundits and technophiles).
>>'ve not used Exchange for a while, but perhaps >>you could let me know what it does that SOGo >>[opengroupware.org] doesn't? And if this really >>justifies the cost.
It is at sogo.opengroupware.org, BTW. OGo and SOGo are two distinct products/projects.
>Works well on Windows, without changing users' >workflow. SOGo is not a drop-in replacement for >Exchange, and for that alone it fails because >Exchange is, whether you like it or not, the best >bet at a shop using Windows desktops due to the >easy integration.
So nothing can ever complete with Exchange; that is the result of this arguement.
>You could be right there. As I understand it, >Sharepoint's key selling point is integration,
Yes.
>which is typically something that the 'small >tools doing one job well' model that is popular >in the Free Software world does poorly
The only real problem with the Treo is the battery life. Even with an extended battery I can hardly get it to run for 24 hours before the battery runs out without even making calls or sending text messages Your phone is messed up. I had a p650 and now a p755. I get >24 runtime using a Bluetooth headset, text messaging, and pulling down e-mail.
You can call it a BBS, or you can call it groupware, or you can call it "social software" (the new favorite buzzword for the tech marketing dweebs). Call it whatever you want but its basically the same thing. Messaging is messaging. This simply is not true. There are three categories that frequently get mashed together: PIM, Groupware, and messaging. They are very much three distinct products. Obviously messaging is different than PIM or Groupware. Groupware and PIM may *look* superficially the same but the data model for, at least well done, groupware and PIM are radically different.
A PIM is exactly a Personal-Information-Manager - my contacts, my schedule, etc... Maybe it has a send-contact button, but it is all about ME.
Groupware is about sharing, whereas with PIM sharing is at best a tack-on. Internally this matters a great deal as groupware will provide you will a access control mechanism, workflow, auditing (most likely), and views on common data. (If it doesn't provide those things it is a glorfied PIM and not groupware).
Messaging is about messaging. Most messaging clients integrate with some PIM and/or Groupware application because of the obvious benefits. But that doesn't make them the same thing.
Sorry, I've been a developer in the groupware space for awhile now so I get testy when people slosh around PIM and groupware in the same bowl. If one looks beneath the fact that they both have an "address book" button you'll discover allot of difference other than how it is themed.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that was the point -- the Joker even commented that the descent to madness takes just a little push. That's what the hospital scene was -- Harvey was holding it together even through everything that happened until a little push, then his whole personality crumbled around him.
I guess if you disagree with the premise "madness takes just a little push" as I do, then that explains why I found the movie from that point on to be almost silly.
I just don't think anyone who believes "madness takes just a little push" has much real-world experience with madness. The truth is that humanity on the whole is amazingly durable; which is why they right books about madness (because it is the notable exception).
The difference between a moral failing or error in judgment, even frequent ones, and "madness" is a great distance.
As best I can tell, he gave him purpose. Dent was crushed by the loss of his love, his loss of control, and his disfigurement
I enjoyed the movie; and I generally enjoy blow-em-up superhero movies.
But my grievance with comic book movies (and growing with each one) is the everyone is a moral twit.
This guy Dent dedicates his life to taking out bad guys by-the-book and is consitently portrayed as a good guy... then his fiance is murdered and he flips sides based on the advice of the guy responsible for her death??? Come on! Bogus. Do comic book writers/readers really believe a person is that morally fungable? His whole concept of self and morality was bound up with this one relationship? How adolescent. That really was the major minus for me for the whole movie.
Comic book writers need to get out more and talk to the myriad people who come from hellish circumstances and have terrible things happen to them, and put pretty fortunate guys like me to shame. People aren't that pathetic, certainly not people who make it as far as Mr. Dent.
And the Joker is killing people at right and left and the cops just want to roll over? A cop may be crooked and take a little cream - but this guy is hacking down mothers/children/fathers etc... like a lawn mower. A bunch of dead cops and they'd all want him on a stick.
And, yes, I get that batman doesn't kill people. But no way in all this escapades has he never killed anyone by accident - hit them too hard, caused a car crash, knocked something down on them, etc... no way. And yet he won't just stop the Joker (who is human flesh-and-blood, easily breakable) who is blowing up hospitals? Talk about a lack of moral center. At least break the freak's legs.
When the Joker was walking away from the hospital there wasn't one single person around with a gun while the guy was standing in the middle of the street? Try something like that in any given American city.
Again, I enjoyed the movie. And I'd have none of these complaints if it were for the numerous movies before it that bugged me the same way.
I love the fact Linux is dynamic, and open source. I really do. I don't like the fact that it doesn't seem to 'evolve'.
Doesn't evolve? Every single edition of GNOME is better than the last. I use openSUSE/GNOME on both my laptop and my workstation - everything works, and pretty-much has worked, for years.
Music playing, ripping, burning? yep
Fancy 3d desktop? yep
Printing? yep
Mail, word processing, huge spreadsheets? yep
If LINUX doesn't work for you as a desktop, OK. But saying it doesn't "evolve" is baseless. Every edition has added new and interesting features. From Beagle and D-Bus to VPN support in the network manager and awesome bluetooth support (I can right click and send any file to my phone).
It works, and it rocks. I have no desire at all to switch to an over-priced and proprietary Mac.
You can know how to eat without knowing how to cook.
It's silly to expect people to take time to learn how to cook before complaining that the Linux stew lacks something.
But it's fair to ignore complainers who just say "it's bad" without giving anything useful.
Ditto!
There is a difference between constructive criticism and whining-on-your-blog. But both fall under the umbrella of "complaining".
They could spent 9 months learning the code, the build instructions, how it all fits together, creating their patch, testing their patch, submitting the patch, then hoping and praying that the project accepts the patch
There are projects that are that bad. Many are not.
Or they could put in a bug report than the project maintainer can fix in 5 minutes, since he's already done all that work.
Of course, the maintainer (assuming there is one, see below) doesn't have hundreds of other "5 minute" fixes.
Which one sounds more efficient?
The user fixing the bug is way more efficient. Then the user can add a new feature, close someone else's bug, etc... and then the Open Source model can actually work.
*OR* the user can contact the developer and offer remediation ($$$) to fix the bug. After all, what did you pay for the software?
Of course, the real problem is that (most) open source projects don't read their bug trackers, even if the public is putting in bugs. I estimate around 75% of the time the bug never even gets assigned.
This is certainly true, at least effectively. But I don't think it is actually because they don't read the bug database. I believe in most cases it is because there is no-one to read the bug database. I'd say that *easily* 75% of Open Source projects simply have no active maintainer. Maybe they have a mail-list minder, but no maintainer. I've tried to take-over maintainership of two small Open Source projects and not even been able to get a response from the current "maintainer" for that.
I've given up, and I'm sure I'm not alone on this.
Your not alone, I've talked to numerous others who share your opinion.
Complaining publicly about the bugs, preferably in a forum that the developers follow, is probably the most effective use of their time.
It is a waste of their time and usually just irritating. Go add comments to the bug-report rather than wasting your own time blogging on your BLOG no one significant will ever read. Personally, I advocate the old put-up or shut-up approach. Complaining is not constructive, when children do it it is called "whining".
I've fixed lots of bugs; sometimes it is really hard and sometimes it is really easy. I don't expect most end-users to become bug-fixers. I do expect users to report their problems in the correct forum (bug database or project mailing list) and in a constructive way.
Assuming the critics are actually knowledgable and perform substantive criticism. Otherwise developers should save their time an just ignore the constant stream of whining crap that composes most of the blog-o-sphere.
I *enjoy* LinuxHater, but it is primarily entertainment; like a comedian who mocks politicians. It is entertainment, nothing more. I don't agree with what he says anymore than I take what a comedian says about public policy seriously [doing either is would just be stupid].
.Not sending bounce messages reduces the load on the servers and net (now that most mail traffic bounces). Pretending to accept mail which is actually dropped is a defense against guessing email addresses and probing filters to see what gets past them.
Rejecting mail isn't the same as generating a bounce. Rejecting while the connection is open doesn't generate a bounce (unless the remote chooses to).
Accepting and dropping is a clear violation of the RFC. I don't care if it is done my Google, Microsoft, or anyone else. What happened to "do no evil", violating an RFC is evil.
But comparing the feature to resource utilization ratio is ridiculous - Evolution blows Thunderbird out of the water.
And neither of these clients is bloated, both are fairly light weight. Most claims of "bloat" come from people who don't know how to read the utilization stats like RSS correctly.
1. openSUSE doesn't need a new era, it is doing just fine.
2. The Microsoft pact hasn't alienated any of the community that matters. There are fundamentalists that gripe and whine and spit about every intellectual property issue that they *perceive* reduces openness. And there are people who write code. There isn't much overlap at all between the coder and the fundamentalist - so there whining and spitting should just be takes as the meaningless noise that it is.
3. Yast is *extremely* modular and not in the least bit monolithic - one just has to look at the Yast packages to know that. It even has multiple front-ends. This makes as much charge as the people who accuse Evolution of being monolithic (it a highly modular app that consists mostly of cooperating components). Another Yast plus is that it works and coverts almost all configuration issues right down to certificate management. That makes SuSE / openSUSE the only distro with a comprehensive management tool.
But anyway, the article is really about turning TB *NOT* into a groupware client but into a social networking client - Ugh!!!, IMO, but I'm sure there is a demographic for it.
Yes, they do! :)
Seriously, this just-use-webmail thing gets old. Webmail for the power user, or the road warrior, just doesn't work.
Then you have tasks (with workflow), calendaring, resource reservations, etc... but the google fanboys just don't believe anyone needs (or uses) that stuff.
To do calendar sharing you really need a real backend be it Exchange, OpenGroupware, Citadel, Open-Exchange, etc...
I agree that server side filter is dramatically more powerful than client side for many use-cases.
End user's I deal with care allot about "workflow". Perhaps software on the home PC is about making people happy - at least for the small [yes, it is small] portion of the population that spends time every day on social networking sites and the like. But most of the software used every day is for the purpose of doing work.
I guess he would think a mail client that integrates with MySpace is a killer app.
So either a site is open to a not-Exchange-solution, like SOGo or OGo, or they want Exchange. Trying to *be* exchange wouldn't be either fun (from a developers point of view) or valuable (from a marketplace point of view). Having to be-Exchange eliminates innovation and customization.
And that products like OpenGroupware, Scalable OpenGroupware, Zimbra, and other exist (and do quite well) is testimonial to the fact that there is a marketplace for the not-Exchange. Especially as the world becomes less Windows, and more Web, focused (although I think that transition from local to network is often exaggerated by pundits and technophiles).
>>'ve not used Exchange for a while, but perhaps
>>you could let me know what it does that SOGo
>>[opengroupware.org] doesn't? And if this really
>>justifies the cost.
It is at sogo.opengroupware.org, BTW. OGo and SOGo are two distinct products/projects.
>Works well on Windows, without changing users'
>workflow. SOGo is not a drop-in replacement for
>Exchange, and for that alone it fails because
>Exchange is, whether you like it or not, the best
>bet at a shop using Windows desktops due to the
>easy integration.
So nothing can ever complete with Exchange; that is the result of this arguement.
>You could be right there. As I understand it,
>Sharepoint's key selling point is integration,
Yes.
>which is typically something that the 'small
>tools doing one job well' model that is popular
>in the Free Software world does poorly
Very poorly.
> "if it succeeds"
.NET on LINUX. It has all the cool features including generics, LINQ, partial classes, extension methods, etc...
It works, now, today. I develop
Check the mono list, there have been several recent "success stories".
Ditto, I use pssh on a Palm p755. Works *VERY* well.
:)
Sometimes if a meeting is really boring I just run "top" in order to have something to stare at.
A PIM is exactly a Personal-Information-Manager - my contacts, my schedule, etc... Maybe it has a send-contact button, but it is all about ME.
Groupware is about sharing, whereas with PIM sharing is at best a tack-on. Internally this matters a great deal as groupware will provide you will a access control mechanism, workflow, auditing (most likely), and views on common data. (If it doesn't provide those things it is a glorfied PIM and not groupware).
Messaging is about messaging. Most messaging clients integrate with some PIM and/or Groupware application because of the obvious benefits. But that doesn't make them the same thing.
Sorry, I've been a developer in the groupware space for awhile now so I get testy when people slosh around PIM and groupware in the same bowl. If one looks beneath the fact that they both have an "address book" button you'll discover allot of difference other than how it is themed.