>> I'm not sure about this. The goal of the manned space program also involves establishing human presence in space.
Agree, but I see the value of giving NASA a target not so much as the return from pure exploration, but in building an infrastructure to support that exploration. As you noted, the Shuttle hasn't delivered that infrastrucure.
The Shuttle isn't required to lift payload, but I suspect by the time that future station components were redesigned or rebuilt to be accommodated on other boosters the station would be beyond its sell-by date.
The essential issue with the Shuttle is that it has no real mission. Just try to answer this question: Where is the shuttle supposed to go?
The notion of creating cheaper, safer ways to get into orbit is, of course, a no-brainer. Would you want to create more expensive, dangerous paths to orbit? Thirty years ago, we'd just sent people to the Moon using the magnificent Saturn V's, which, it wasn't hard even for politicians to miss, were destroyed in the process, never to be used again. As a result, the idea that money could be saved by putting wings on a spacecraft and reusing it like an airplane soon became the accepted mantra. But, soon, the Nixon White House began to harp about money, instead of providing leadership, and we were saddled with the bastardized worst-of-both-worlds Shuttle.
NASA has been hobbled since then with, first, a big, expensive Rube Goldberg-style launch vehicle, and two, lack of direction and leadership from the White House.
Space travel is about going someplace. Someone needs to pick a destination for NASA.
One, it's only an assumption that this "secret" thing is an encryption device. If we knew what it is, it wouldn't be secret anymore, eh?
Two, military aircraft fly every day chocked full of classified hardware and software. And, sometimes they crash. The argument that the possibility of a crash should preclude the use of classified devices is wrong and inane.
No "escape pods" are attached to ISS. One Soyuz craft, capable of ferrying down 3 people, is docked at the station. Russia is obligated to swap out that Souz every 6 months.
Russia also uses their unmanned Progress craft to send up small amounts of supplies on a regular basis, and to remove some of the station's waste. The craft then burns up on re-entry.
Using the Russian craft effectively limits the station's capabilities. Since the Soyuz is the only way to get the crew off the station in an emergency, that means no more than 3 people can be onboard, which is about one-half the intended crew complement, I believe. Fewer people means fewer results.
The cargo-capacity of Progress, only a small fraction of the Shuttle's, is simply insufficient to resupply the station in the long term.
And, of course, remember that tthe station is not yet complete. Only the Shuttle can do that job.
Don't forget that the Shuttle's intended design was crippled by the Nixon Administration's budget crew and that, ever since, the U.S. has been operating a human space flight program that manages to combine lack of direction (no President since Kennedy has provided even an ounce of space leadership) with rigidity and feigned purpose.
You poor sod. You've blundered onto why software sucks and you don't even know it.
You bet your sweet little tush that users don't think like developers. Here's what they think: Developers are supposed to be off writing software that does what they want it to do, not what developers think they want it to do. Just because you think something has a "good interface" doesn't mean the bloody thing is easy to use. Did you spend time with your customers watching and learning what they do? Can you do it? Did you sit for a week with potential users to see if what they really do is the same as what they told you they do? Maybe you built them an interface to things they don't do.
If you write-- or buy -- code that "they just can't figure out", it's your problem, not their's.
Don't forget: (5) Not bothering to read what stories have already run and posting duplicates; (6) Not botherng to read much of anything else and posting stories two days after the rest of the world knew about them.
Here's a twenty. Can somebody send Timothy out for beer?
If I invest, say, a 6-figure sum for IT support of my company, I want to be certain that the software I buy will be maintained for at least as long as I use it. While glamour open source code like Linuix and Apache are probably safe bets, much other code is risky, especially the thin-on-the-ground vertical apps that businesses need. Why bet your company on some unseen, unknown, unpaid developers who may walk away from the software?
>>...So unless profit can be got from it, it's worthless?
No, it just means that in an open source-only world, if I needed software that I didnt want to write myself, I'd be dependent on the whims and interests of others. If my business depended on my software, I much rather contract with someone who I know will stay interested because I'm paying them.
1. U.S. bandwidth providers will drop the flat rate billing approach and start metering useage -- the more bits you move across their network, the more they charge you.
2. Suits against ISP's will increase; ISP's will pass the cost on to customers.
3. Hardware and software will be developed to support "Copy To Local Machine Only" digital entertainment.
Because a lot of the people here behave as -- and probably are -- spoiled adolescent American boy brats. You know, the kind of useless self-centered bastards who learned when they were babies that dumping in their diapers would get them some attention. Since attention is all they want, they're still doing it. It's just a cheap ego boost...but i guess that's important if you already know you're leading a pointless life.
Lacking the ability to come up with an original thought, they simply stomp their feet in opposition to whatever the adult in the room happens to say. Try to ignore them and maybe they'll go away.
A lot of people around here seem to think that making money by any means is immoral. We're all supposed to give it all away, I guess, and tell the bank we want a free mortgage.
Truth is, unless someone finds a reliable way to profit from open source, it resolves to nothing more than a whole lot of geeks doing what interests them. Good for them, bad for anyone who's dependent on software.
Without the flamebait, the post could be paraphrased as "...following common industry practice, software company to phase out support for early versions of its products."
Now, isn't that exciting.
Re:A lesson the Linux worlds needs to learn
on
Why VHS Was Better
·
· Score: 1
Your family's skills are commendable. The previous discussion, though, was looking at dangers posed to a network by users of computers on that network. Within that context, I'll stand by my assertion that it isn't reasonable to expect mainstream computer users to develop the skills many Linux say they have. That's neither a slam on Linux or on "mainstream computer users". It's possible for Linux to be easier to use, and it's possible for ordinary folks to use it.
But, mainstream users -- of any OS -- shouldn't be expected to be motivated to develop the savvy needed to discover, diagnose, and treat dangers to the network posed by their machines. For example, users should be aware of the benefits of using a firewall. They ought to be able to acquire and install one as easily as they install a game. But they don't need to know how a firewall really works, any more than they need to know how that game really works at code level.
Re:A lesson the Linux worlds needs to learn
on
Why VHS Was Better
·
· Score: 1
Sounds familiar. FWIW, I switched to Apple's OS X 6 months ago after a number of years with Linux. Why? I decided I was spending too much time tweaking things, rather than using them. Tweaking can be addictive.
Unix was my first OS, way back when. Linux attracted me because it was a Unix-style OS I could afford to run at home, not because I wanted a Windows replacement or because it was open source. But, after editing my umpteenth config file, or chasing down some library so I can compile some app that I might not like anyway, or banging at X so I can stand to look at it for more than a few minutes...well, it all took on a "been there, done that" tone.
Re:A lesson the Linux worlds needs to learn
on
Why VHS Was Better
·
· Score: 1
I'm not promoting computer illiteracy, but I do believe that it is as unreasonable to expect ordinary users who do not find computing technology interesting in its own right to be motivated to acquire the skills and knowledge needed to undertake the same kind of analyis and action you imply we'd see from most Linux users. An example: An experienced Linux user might build a firewall from scratch. tuning it to meet every contingency. A regular user, on the other hand, might be expected to understand that a firewall is a "good thing", but need to purchase and install a commercial product.
It's analagous to a typical driver knowing that the brake pads might need replacing, but taking the car to a mechanic for the work. We should be happy that the driver recognize the need for the maintenance.
>>...Grab a computer and install a version of RedHat linux from 1999. Now install the latest version. You'll notice a phenomenal difference between the two products.
I haven't installed the current version, but I installed and used several Red Hat releases through 7.3. Yes, the later releases have better installation routines. No, like all installation routines, they can throw a hissy fit when something unexpected happens.
>>... It'll have a nice desktop interface that's clearly modeled after Windows/Macintosh. It'll have an office suite designed to be comfortable for someone who's used to MS Office
True, but if you already have Windows or a Mac, and nothing compels you to abandon it, why would you spend money and time converting to an OS that merely tries to mimic what you already have?
Anyone who wants to see Linux become a mainstream consumer product should try to answer these questions: If Windows/Mac reliably meets your needs, and you aren't interested in open versus proprietary software issues, and you buy shrinkwrapped software rather than do installs off the net, why would you want Linux?
>>....>But to claim that Linux "expects the customer to change rather than the product" is to set up a strawman...
I didn't assert that "Linux" expects anything. It can't; it's just an inanimate bunch of code.
Posts Reflect "Better 'Cause I Use Linux" Syndrome
on
Why VHS Was Better
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The JWZ piece was on target, and the reaction here predictable.
A pair of insupportable assertions runs through many posts attacking anyone who suggests that the reason for Linux's limited popular success rests with Linux, not with people who don't use it.
The first assertion: I figured out how to use this thing the hard way, so everyone else should as well.
The second assertion: People don't use Linux because they're either too lazy to figure it out or too stupid. Either way, I'm better than they are because I use Linux.
In truth, there's much about Linux that's a waste of time: multiple installation routines; conflicting packaging "standards"; hazardous library seas; etc. Even for professionals, learning about these things is just annoying. Someone with a commitment to the open source philosophy behind Linux may be accept these annoyances. The rest of the world will just avoid Linux.
While it's tempting to argue that "Good is the enemy of the best", it should be apparent that a successful product will, by definition, do what it's buyers want it to do. Capabilities or attributes that aren't wanted won't help sales. In fact, adding on capabilities that people don't won't or can't discern (like high-falutin' specs) will drive the price up.
Re:A lesson the Linux worlds needs to learn
on
Why VHS Was Better
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
True, true. I'd add that most geeks also seem to expect computer users to progress from a newbie state (Windows) to a "power user" state" Linux. In other words, they expect the customer to change rather than the product.
What they seem to fail to understand is that many, if not most computer users, aren't that interested in computers, no more than they have an abiding interest in how television works. Its "what" it enables them to do, not how it does it, that counts.
Slashdot Mirror
>> I'm not sure about this. The goal of the manned space program also involves establishing human presence in space.
Agree, but I see the value of giving NASA a target not so much as the return from pure exploration, but in building an infrastructure to support that exploration. As you noted, the Shuttle hasn't delivered that infrastrucure.
The Shuttle isn't required to lift payload, but I suspect by the time that future station components were redesigned or rebuilt to be accommodated on other boosters the station would be beyond its sell-by date.
The essential issue with the Shuttle is that it has no real mission. Just try to answer this question: Where is the shuttle supposed to go?
The notion of creating cheaper, safer ways to get into orbit is, of course, a no-brainer. Would you want to create more expensive, dangerous paths to orbit? Thirty years ago, we'd just sent people to the Moon using the magnificent Saturn V's, which, it wasn't hard even for politicians to miss, were destroyed in the process, never to be used again. As a result, the idea that money could be saved by putting wings on a spacecraft and reusing it like an airplane soon became the accepted mantra. But, soon, the Nixon White House began to harp about money, instead of providing leadership, and we were saddled with the bastardized worst-of-both-worlds Shuttle.
NASA has been hobbled since then with, first, a big, expensive Rube Goldberg-style launch vehicle, and two, lack of direction and leadership from the White House.
Space travel is about going someplace. Someone needs to pick a destination for NASA.
One, it's only an assumption that this "secret" thing is an encryption device. If we knew what it is, it wouldn't be secret anymore, eh?
Two, military aircraft fly every day chocked full of classified hardware and software. And, sometimes they crash. The argument that the possibility of a crash should preclude the use of classified devices is wrong and inane.
No "escape pods" are attached to ISS. One Soyuz craft, capable of ferrying down 3 people, is docked at the station. Russia is obligated to swap out that Souz every 6 months.
Russia also uses their unmanned Progress craft to send up small amounts of supplies on a regular basis, and to remove some of the station's waste. The craft then burns up on re-entry.
Using the Russian craft effectively limits the station's capabilities. Since the Soyuz is the only way to get the crew off the station in an emergency, that means no more than 3 people can be onboard, which is about one-half the intended crew complement, I believe. Fewer people means fewer results.
The cargo-capacity of Progress, only a small fraction of the Shuttle's, is simply insufficient to resupply the station in the long term.
And, of course, remember that tthe station is not yet complete. Only the Shuttle can do that job.
Don't forget that the Shuttle's intended design was crippled by the Nixon Administration's budget crew and that, ever since, the U.S. has been operating a human space flight program that manages to combine lack of direction (no President since Kennedy has provided even an ounce of space leadership) with rigidity and feigned purpose.
You poor sod. You've blundered onto why software sucks and you don't even know it.
You bet your sweet little tush that users don't think like developers. Here's what they think: Developers are supposed to be off writing software that does what they want it to do, not what developers think they want it to do. Just because you think something has a "good interface" doesn't mean the bloody thing is easy to use. Did you spend time with your customers watching and learning what they do? Can you do it? Did you sit for a week with potential users to see if what they really do is the same as what they told you they do? Maybe you built them an interface to things they don't do.
If you write-- or buy -- code that "they just can't figure out", it's your problem, not their's.
Upgrades keep the IT paychecks coming in.
You'd complain, too, if a bunch of outsiders shoved a bunch of unwelcomed, unrequested changes down your throat.
In business, IT is a supportM function. No one else cares about hacking your precious kernels.
More than one hundred shuttle flights have landed successfully, so what's with your assertion that "we could not make the shuttle land successfully"?
By the way, your thoughts -- and those of everyone esle -- have no bearing on the reality of the moon landings.
It was at approximately 200,000 feet, and it was moving at 12,000 mph or so. down about 5,000 mph from orbital speed.
You do still leave the house and venture outside every now and then? Space flight remains dangerous by nature.
Don't be such a curmudgeon:-)
Who cares what it's good for? Some folks had fun building it; some other folks will have fun playing with it. That's all the purpose anyone needs.
Don't forget: (5) Not bothering to read what stories have already run and posting duplicates; (6) Not botherng to read much of anything else and posting stories two days after the rest of the world knew about them.
Here's a twenty. Can somebody send Timothy out for beer?
Huh?
If I invest, say, a 6-figure sum for IT support of my company, I want to be certain that the software I buy will be maintained for at least as long as I use it. While glamour open source code like Linuix and Apache are probably safe bets, much other code is risky, especially the thin-on-the-ground vertical apps that businesses need. Why bet your company on some unseen, unknown, unpaid developers who may walk away from the software?
>> ...So unless profit can be got from it, it's worthless?
No, it just means that in an open source-only world, if I needed software that I didnt want to write myself, I'd be dependent on the whims and interests of others. If my business depended on my software, I much rather contract with someone who I know will stay interested because I'm paying them.
...is:
1. U.S. bandwidth providers will drop the flat rate billing approach and start metering useage -- the more bits you move across their network, the more they charge you.
2. Suits against ISP's will increase; ISP's will pass the cost on to customers.
3. Hardware and software will be developed to support "Copy To Local Machine Only" digital entertainment.
Because a lot of the people here behave as -- and probably are -- spoiled adolescent American boy brats. You know, the kind of useless self-centered bastards who learned when they were babies that dumping in their diapers would get them some attention. Since attention is all they want, they're still doing it. It's just a cheap ego boost...but i guess that's important if you already know you're leading a pointless life.
Lacking the ability to come up with an original thought, they simply stomp their feet in opposition to whatever the adult in the room happens to say. Try to ignore them and maybe they'll go away.
A lot of people around here seem to think that making money by any means is immoral. We're all supposed to give it all away, I guess, and tell the bank we want a free mortgage.
Truth is, unless someone finds a reliable way to profit from open source, it resolves to nothing more than a whole lot of geeks doing what interests them. Good for them, bad for anyone who's dependent on software.
Without the flamebait, the post could be paraphrased as "...following common industry practice, software company to phase out support for early versions of its products."
Now, isn't that exciting.
Your family's skills are commendable. The previous discussion, though, was looking at dangers posed to a network by users of computers on that network. Within that context, I'll stand by my assertion that it isn't reasonable to expect mainstream computer users to develop the skills many Linux say they have. That's neither a slam on Linux or on "mainstream computer users". It's possible for Linux to be easier to use, and it's possible for ordinary folks to use it.
But, mainstream users -- of any OS -- shouldn't be expected to be motivated to develop the savvy needed to discover, diagnose, and treat dangers to the network posed by their machines. For example, users should be aware of the benefits of using a firewall. They ought to be able to acquire and install one as easily as they install a game. But they don't need to know how a firewall really works, any more than they need to know how that game really works at code level.
Sounds familiar. FWIW, I switched to Apple's OS X 6 months ago after a number of years with Linux. Why? I decided I was spending too much time tweaking things, rather than using them. Tweaking can be addictive.
Unix was my first OS, way back when. Linux attracted me because it was a Unix-style OS I could afford to run at home, not because I wanted a Windows replacement or because it was open source. But, after editing my umpteenth config file, or chasing down some library so I can compile some app that I might not like anyway, or banging at X so I can stand to look at it for more than a few minutes...well, it all took on a "been there, done that" tone.
I'm not promoting computer illiteracy, but I do believe that it is as unreasonable to expect ordinary users who do not find computing technology interesting in its own right to be motivated to acquire the skills and knowledge needed to undertake the same kind of analyis and action you imply we'd see from most Linux users. An example: An experienced Linux user might build a firewall from scratch. tuning it to meet every contingency. A regular user, on the other hand, might be expected to understand that a firewall is a "good thing", but need to purchase and install a commercial product.
It's analagous to a typical driver knowing that the brake pads might need replacing, but taking the car to a mechanic for the work. We should be happy that the driver recognize the need for the maintenance.
>> ...Grab a computer and install a version of RedHat linux from 1999. Now install the latest version. You'll notice a phenomenal difference between the two products.
I haven't installed the current version, but I installed and used several Red Hat releases through 7.3. Yes, the later releases have better installation routines. No, like all installation routines, they can throw a hissy fit when something unexpected happens.
>>... It'll have a nice desktop interface that's clearly modeled after Windows/Macintosh. It'll have an office suite designed to be comfortable for someone who's used to MS Office
True, but if you already have Windows or a Mac, and nothing compels you to abandon it, why would you spend money and time converting to an OS that merely tries to mimic what you already have?
Anyone who wants to see Linux become a mainstream consumer product should try to answer these questions: If Windows/Mac reliably meets your needs, and you aren't interested in open versus proprietary software issues, and you buy shrinkwrapped software rather than do installs off the net, why would you want Linux?
>>....>But to claim that Linux "expects the customer to change rather than the product" is to set up a strawman...
I didn't assert that "Linux" expects anything. It can't; it's just an inanimate bunch of code.
The JWZ piece was on target, and the reaction here predictable.
A pair of insupportable assertions runs through many posts attacking anyone who suggests that the reason for Linux's limited popular success rests with Linux, not with people who don't use it.
The first assertion: I figured out how to use this thing the hard way, so everyone else should as well.
The second assertion: People don't use Linux because they're either too lazy to figure it out or too stupid. Either way, I'm better than they are because I use Linux.
In truth, there's much about Linux that's a waste of time: multiple installation routines; conflicting packaging "standards"; hazardous library seas; etc. Even for professionals, learning about these things is just annoying. Someone with a commitment to the open source philosophy behind Linux may be accept these annoyances. The rest of the world will just avoid Linux.
While it's tempting to argue that "Good is the enemy of the best", it should be apparent that a successful product will, by definition, do what it's buyers want it to do. Capabilities or attributes that aren't wanted won't help sales. In fact, adding on capabilities that people don't won't or can't discern (like high-falutin' specs) will drive the price up.
True, true. I'd add that most geeks also seem to expect computer users to progress from a newbie state (Windows) to a "power user" state" Linux. In other words, they expect the customer to change rather than the product.
What they seem to fail to understand is that many, if not most computer users, aren't that interested in computers, no more than they have an abiding interest in how television works. Its "what" it enables them to do, not how it does it, that counts.