I've heard it said that MS needs to win over the geek crowd of early adopters. Maybe this is an attempt to get them with an implied Seven of Nine reference. All it needs now is an ad campaign featuring Jeri Ryan.
I don't claim that Palin is dumb, but she is uninformed about many national policy issues. She interviewed badly for Couric and Gibson because they asked her about the issues and then ran with the story that she didn't have good answers. That's newsworthy because candidates for high level national offices should be well informed about the issues at that level, regardless of party affiliation.
In at least this one case, the simple truth is that reality does have a liberal bias.
I used to be a member of a union (United University Professionals). The union didn't impose any onerous restrictions on my work and I was glad to have the representation of a union. If I worked for a very large employer today I might want to be in a union, or I might not.
There are two reasons why it wouldn't work for me today. First, I work for a small employer, and I have worked for small employers for much of my career. In effect, I'm a union of one because if I stop working the place shuts down. Second, I'm a very skilled and experienced programmer. It wouldn't be easy to replace me.
So, I guess unions work in fields where workers work for large employers and where workers are largely interchangeable. A lot if IT isn't like that.
It would be cool if there was a large professional organization that looked out for my interests, but again the problem is that there isn't one set of interests to represent in IT. The issues and positions that matter to me are likely to be different than those that matter to a Microsoft or IBM employee, even though we may have the same job title.
It's available at the school where I teach. I considered using it, but after messing with it briefly I found it too cumbersome. Instead I just wrote some course web pages using vi and put them up in my personal web space at the school. So basically, I ditched Blackboard in favor of vi.
No - but just the fact that it came from MS would make them feel better.
Look, in these circumstances we're talking about I would say they should just take the plunge and run Linux. My point is that customers who want to run Windows but find themselves in circumstances where they probably should run Unix/Linux might find this sort of thing appealing.
It's not close enough for me, but for a place that is already committed to running Windows that won't matter. I know some people at a nearby Windows shop, and to them the thought of admin'ing Linux systems is terrifying.
MS knows that there is no point in trying to appeal to the Unix crowd. Nobody is running Unix/Linux today because they are waiting for MS to release a sufficiently Unixy system.
What this could do however, is keep some Windows shops from bringing in Unix boxes. The scenario could go like this: A Windows shop hires a Unix/Linux person to build some sort of system they need. This person makes a case for bringing in a couple of Linux boxes. Rather than giving in to this, the Windows shop can set up some Windows servers with this crap and get away with it because it's close enough to Linux
Fair enough - but my understanding, based on what I've heard from people who work for MSN, is that MS is not particularly good at running large data centers. It's not one of their strengths. And I'm speculating that Yahoo may be better at it because data center ops are more central to their business.
I wonder how that would shake out. A platform migration on that scale would be very expensive and time consuming, and I think it has taken MS years to manage similar, but much smaller transitions when they bought out other companies. Also, I expect that Yahoo has a lot more expertise at running large data centers than MS does.
1. If your employer really plans to stick you in the server room, then the best office for you is one supplied by a new employer.
2. Alternatively, divide your space into two rooms, one for the equipment and one for you. Put your office behind the server room. When people are looking for you they'll open the door, find only a noisy server room, then look elsewhere.
Is there actually a standard for what sort of ID's an airline will accept? I seem to remember a newspaper story in which the reporter printed up her own official-looking id and used it to fly without difficulty.
Keep in mind, the photo ID requirement is not a security measure. It's a measure to keep you from selling your non-refundable tickets.
From Schneier:
Unlike every other airplane security measure -- including reinforcing cockpit doors, which could have prevented 9/11 -- the airlines didn't resist this one, because it solved a business problem: the resale of non-refundable tickets. Before the photo ID requirement, these tickets were regularly advertised in classified pages: "Round trip, New York to Los Angeles, 11/21-30, male, $100." Since the airlines never checked IDs, anyone of the correct gender could use the ticket. Airlines hated that, and tried repeatedly to shut that market down. In 1996, the airlines were finally able to solve that problem and blame it on the FAA and terrorism.
Your car example is interesting, since most adults I know are able to drive cars. Very few of them know much else about cars. You can be a pretty successful driver without knowing much about cars.
I have a nice 35mm camera on which all of the controls are manual, so you have to know a bit about photography to use it. I also have simple digital camera. My son has been able to use it since he was 5.
I used to teach a college course in basic HTML. The students were all able to use computers pretty successfully before they started the class. They browsed the web, used email, and wrote papers on the computer. But almost none of them knew what a file was before taking the class. They sure as hell didn't know what an operating system was.
My point is that, for many people, operating systems exist at a low level where they just don't notice them - much like the transmissions in their cars.
Fair enough, but it sounds like you (and me) sometimes play different roles when we sit down at a computer. For example, here are the roles I commonly play:
1. User: Right now I'm hanging out using my browser, and the OS doesn't really matter. I could even use Windows and it wouldn't matter too much.
2. Hobbyist: I like to mess around with computers, so I use an OS that gives me opportunities to mess around in interesting ways.
3. Programmer: I care about the OS a bit, since some of the code I write may be OS-specific. I have to be aware of details of the target OS.
4. Sysadmin: I care about the OS a lot, since I'm wallowing in it like a pig in shit.
Non-geeks only deal with case #1. As geeks we may know about issues that will make one OS or another better suited to non-geeks needs. But non-geeks aren't aware of this and don't care. That's just the way it is. My mom doesn't care about the details of her car's engine, she just wants to drive to the store. And she approaches her computer in a similar way.
For a typical non-geek, "learning Linux" is a lousy idea. So is "learning Windows". That's because they don't want to use an operating system. They want to send email, work with their digital pictures, write a novel, or whatever. Non-geeks need to learn how to do the tasks that interest them, and that is how geeks should present this information to them.
Slashdot Mirror
All right, you've got me. I've been posting code using the pseudonym "Linus Torvalds" for years, but I guess the jig is up.
I'm using subversion today and I plan to switch to git soon. I can think of two main reasons to use svn:
1. git doesn't work well on Windows;
2. svn plays well with a lot of IDEs and similar tools.
Neither of those points matter to me, hence the upcoming switch.
I've heard it said that MS needs to win over the geek crowd of early adopters. Maybe this is an attempt to get them with an implied Seven of Nine reference. All it needs now is an ad campaign featuring Jeri Ryan.
I don't claim that Palin is dumb, but she is uninformed about many national policy issues.
She interviewed badly for Couric and Gibson because they asked her about the issues and then ran with the story that she didn't have good answers. That's newsworthy because candidates for high level national offices should be well informed about the issues at that level, regardless of party affiliation.
In at least this one case, the simple truth is that reality does have a liberal bias.
I used to be a member of a union (United University Professionals). The union didn't impose any onerous restrictions on my work and I was glad to have the representation of a union. If I worked for a very large employer today I might want to be in a union, or I might not.
There are two reasons why it wouldn't work for me today. First, I work for a small employer, and I have worked for small employers for much of my career. In effect, I'm a union of one because if I stop working the place shuts down. Second, I'm a very skilled and experienced programmer. It wouldn't be easy to replace me.
So, I guess unions work in fields where workers work for large employers and where workers are largely interchangeable. A lot if IT isn't like that.
It would be cool if there was a large professional organization that looked out for my interests, but again the problem is that there isn't one set of interests to represent in IT. The issues and positions that matter to me are likely to be different than those that matter to a Microsoft or IBM employee, even though we may have the same job title.
It's available at the school where I teach. I considered using it, but after messing with it briefly I found it too cumbersome. Instead I just wrote some course web pages using vi and put them up in my personal web space at the school. So basically, I ditched Blackboard in favor of vi.
No - but just the fact that it came from MS would make them feel better.
Look, in these circumstances we're talking about I would say they should just take the plunge and run Linux. My point is that customers who want to run Windows but find themselves in circumstances where they probably should run Unix/Linux might find this sort of thing appealing.
It's not close enough for me, but for a place that is already committed to running Windows that won't matter. I know some people at a nearby Windows shop, and to them the thought of admin'ing Linux systems is terrifying.
MS knows that there is no point in trying to appeal to the Unix crowd. Nobody is running Unix/Linux today because they are waiting for MS to release a sufficiently Unixy system.
What this could do however, is keep some Windows shops from bringing in Unix boxes. The scenario could go like this: A Windows shop hires a Unix/Linux person to build some sort of system they need. This person makes a case for bringing in a couple of Linux boxes. Rather than giving in to this, the Windows shop can set up some Windows servers with this crap and get away with it because it's close enough to Linux
Fair enough - but my understanding, based on what I've heard from people who work for MSN, is that MS is not particularly good at running large data centers. It's not one of their strengths. And I'm speculating that Yahoo may be better at it because data center ops are more central to their business.
I wonder how that would shake out. A platform migration on that scale would be very expensive and time consuming, and I think it has taken MS years to manage similar, but much smaller transitions when they bought out other companies. Also, I expect that Yahoo has a lot more expertise at running large data centers than MS does.
1. If your employer really plans to stick you in the server room, then the best office for you is one supplied by a new employer.
2. Alternatively, divide your space into two rooms, one for the equipment and one for you. Put your office behind the server room. When people are looking for you they'll open the door, find only a noisy server room, then look elsewhere.
Is there actually a standard for what sort of ID's an airline will accept? I seem to remember a newspaper story in which the reporter printed up her own official-looking id and used it to fly without difficulty.
I don't use any Microsoft products, and I don't have to support people who do, so I have no reason to hate them.
This is actually pretty tough to do, since O'Reilly himself is a parody of a journalist/commentator.
It looks like Microsoft is infringing on their "using bogus lawsuit threats to spread FUD" patent.
Cool. Where do I apply?
They can still run Firefox.
I don't see anywhere where you can actually download a toolbar for Firefox - not that I would if they had one.
That's the other problem with Alexa. It doesn't include clueful users. Of course, they aren't statistically significant.
Your car example is interesting, since most adults I know are able to drive cars. Very few of them know much else about cars. You can be a pretty successful driver without knowing much about cars.
I have a nice 35mm camera on which all of the controls are manual, so you have to know a bit about photography to use it. I also have simple digital camera. My son has been able to use it since he was 5.
I used to teach a college course in basic HTML. The students were all able to use computers pretty successfully before they started the class. They browsed the web, used email, and wrote papers on the computer. But almost none of them knew what a file was before taking the class. They sure as hell didn't know what an operating system was.
My point is that, for many people, operating systems exist at a low level where they just don't notice them - much like the transmissions in their cars.
Fair enough, but it sounds like you (and me) sometimes play different roles when we sit down at a computer. For example, here are the roles I commonly play:
1. User: Right now I'm hanging out using my browser, and the OS doesn't really matter. I could even use Windows and it wouldn't matter too much.
2. Hobbyist: I like to mess around with computers, so I use an OS that gives me opportunities to mess around in interesting ways.
3. Programmer: I care about the OS a bit, since some of the code I write may be OS-specific. I have to be aware of details of the target OS.
4. Sysadmin: I care about the OS a lot, since I'm wallowing in it like a pig in shit.
Non-geeks only deal with case #1. As geeks we may know about issues that will make one OS or another better suited to non-geeks needs. But non-geeks aren't aware of this and don't care. That's just the way it is. My mom doesn't care about the details of her car's engine, she just wants to drive to the store. And she approaches her computer in a similar way.
Buddy, you're using Windows, so clearly you don't usually insist on perfection.
It sounds like what you meant to say was, "My system isn't broken, so I'm not messing with it." That's pretty reasonable.
For a typical non-geek, "learning Linux" is a lousy idea. So is "learning Windows". That's because they don't want to use an operating system. They want to send email, work with their digital pictures, write a novel, or whatever. Non-geeks need to learn how to do the tasks that interest them, and that is how geeks should present this information to them.