A very good friend of mine works for a NASA subcontractor. You remember stories from the military of $30 bolts, etc? Well, the same holds true for NASA. Space exploration, per se, isn't a bad idea, but the agency just spends TOO MUCH MOENY and gets TOO FEW RESULTS. See how cost effective our shuttle program is? It's not at all! It was supposed to allow dozens of flights per year at a reasonable cost per each. Now, it's ony a few/year at a cost that could probably build a single launch vehicle each time. Maybe it's time to kill NASA and either create a new agency or fund developments in the private sector for government use.
If you have a CS degree, most employers assume that means you spent at least 4 years dedicated to learning your subject matter. The fact is that most college students today spend their 4+ years trying to get a degree while learning as little as possible.
Yeah! When I was in college, we really busted our balls day and night to REALLY understand our computers. I could build an ENIAC from scratch in an afternoon. I'd like to see a college brat today do that!
In my Junior year, I spent the 3 weeks before fall term finals awake, studying. These kids today get 'A's if they're awake during the exam.
Before they gave me my BA, I had to build a pocket calculator capable of 3 dimentional plotting and rotation from only the disassembled guts of an FM radio and using only my teeth (OK, I will admit that I did use my left eyebrow once to nudge in a capacitor I was soldering).
Get real! There have always been lazy and motivated students; when you went to college, at least when my father went to college, and now when I'm in college. I'm not a CS major (anthropology, if it matters), but I'm seriously impressed with many of the students who are (even in their sophomore years). You're prolly going to start spouting off "when I was your age" stories next, right? *kidding*
Maybe it's just because of the school I'm at, but everybody seems to be working damned hard and learning quite a bit.
let's see, breaking 40 bit encryption on the fly from an area 150 ft. from my transmitter. I really don't think that's a huge security risk, myself. Especially, b/c if you're doing something very sensitive, you can add extra encryption in the application layer. I think it would prolly be easier to physically break into your network than reliably and consistantly capture and decrypt AirPort transmissions. Anyway, if you've got the AirPort thing in your home, a cracker would likely have to be on your property if ot in your house to compromise it. I'd go for tapping into someone's ethernet any day over AirPort snooping. Assuming, of course, that I did such annoying things.
With the andover buyout and all, what about slashdot.com? It seems some other co is using it to redirect into their site. Don't have time to do a whois so I'll leave that to someone else.
I don't see how the "next-generation" amiga OS bears any resemblence to the original. It would be one thing if they were trying to modernize the original, but now it seems like they're creating yet another proprietary niche OS and slapping the Amiga name (and perhaps part of the UI) on it.
From what I can see, it is completely different from the orginal save for the name. I'm not even sure why loyal Amigans would be in for this; I'm not so cynical to believe that OS loyalty can be based on the name of the OS alone.
So, what's the point? You want a propritary multimedia OS, get Be. You want a powerful OS that runs on many platforms, get a Linux distro. You want a 'NIX-derivative that has a pretty GUI, get MacOS X.
I did find it pretty funny, though, when the Amiga prez said that that Amigans shouldn't worry, the hardware platform will be "unique." Is that supposed to be a feature?
OK, I admit, I'm not a big Amiga user, though I have used friends' several times.
For many companies, including ISPs, educational institutions, etc, the cost of an OS is irrelevent. To spend $400 or so on a server OS is completely worth it if it will be easier to use/maintain. In the scheme of things, having someone work for just a few more hours on a linux than on a Mac OS X server defeats the cost savings of linux. Unless you know what you're doing and have a capable staff, linux is easy to buy into and expensive to keep up with.
I can't just because I'm not an engineer nor do I play one on TV. Nor am I even a CS major (anthropology). I can't say WHY (what inherant features within the OS) BSDs appear to work better than Linux for many serving applications, they just do. I've found them to be somewhat faster and more reliable. Why? Well, you'll have to ask the developers. I just use what works.
I realize that this might be seen as flame-bait, but if you have a 486 lying around that you want to make into a small workgroup server, a BSD is probably the way to go. Yes, Linux does run fairly well on such hardware, but BSDs (at least FreeBSD, with which I've had the most experience) seems to run better. No stats, figures, etc., this is just personal experience. If you want set up a free UNIX [-like] workstation, I would recommend Linux for a variety of reasons (which I won't cover here. It's late). But, for me, when I'm putting together a server, I tend to go with BSDs. For that purpose, they just work better. It's simple a question of the proper tool for the job, not advocacy, religion, or otherwise. If I'm doing graphical work or word processing, I prefer to use a Mac, even though I guess I could run the GIMP and some office app on a 'NIX box. If you're serving lots of data and want a ridiculously reliable system, I would say to go with a BSD although I would never use it as a desktop OS. To paraphrase, use what works best for the task at hand, Linux, BSD, or otherwise.
--Andrew Grossman grossdog@dartmouth.edu
Re:MkLinux - Glad to see progress!
on
MkLinux Not Dead
·
· Score: 1
I thought that a netbsd came out recently for ppcs, even nubus ones. any word on this, anyone?
Sorta off-topic, but... try: http://www.vmac.org to emulate an OLD macintosh. Requires ROM images which, acquired legally, can cost $40. Haven't used it in a couple versions, but, at the time, it was pretty bad.
http://www.ardi.com A clean room implementation of the MacOS, circa system 7. No extensions, massive incompatibilities, pretty fast. It's still under active development by a team of monkeys, but their progress is somewhat slow.
http://www.emulators.com The have a hw/sw emulator called the Gemulator. Never tried it.
Buy an imac. duh. Reasons: 1. They're cheap. My office just picked up a first generation one for $600 even. Not bad. 2. If you're inclined, they run linux very well. Why force yourself to buy intel and pay MS taxes? PPCs run linux and, telnetting in, I'd bet $$$ that no one could tell the difference (though it might be a little faster). 3. It runs MacOS. At the very least, it's no worse than windows and has the advantage of not ginving money to MS or boosting their market share. One could go so far as to claim that it's a great productivity OS, but, if that's not your cup of tea, see #3. Also, MacOS is somewhat more robust than in the past. I have a month of uptime on this computer. Not bad for an OS previously reknowned for some spectacular crashing. 4. They're designed well. Little desktop realestate, easy to set up, and work well as smart terminals. Because they're so cheap, we bought one for everyone in the office. 10 mins of setup time each, and they work great.
To summarize, if you're a linux geek and have imac envy, you're an idiot or 'platform bigot.'
The 20th aniv. mac has (as already noted) Bosre speakers. It looks, a bit, like several models of Bang&olufson CD players. A bit, however. To say it was a ripoff would be akin to calling the imac an sgi ripoff because they both use colored plastics. Sure, the same inventiveness in design exists (and a sort of parodic modern sleekness), but, beyond that, similarities end.
Hmmmm. Let me guess: you do all your image editing, word processing, and other work on a 'NIX box, right? Well, for the other 98% of us, both are tolerable, either out of elegance and ease-of-use or corporate requirement. Oh, and like most other computers (for now), if one sets up their MacOS system properly, it doesn't really crash. I kow my laptop here has been up for two weeks (and only went down then when I unplugged it w/o putting in a battery. oops!). Fortunately, it's entirely easier to set up than 'doze or any 'NIX. I've never had any driver problems either, but that may just be me. Don't even get me started, though, on @%#@#!! IRQs!
1. NeXt, A/UX? Hmmm, Apple's never made a server OS before...? 2. A sever should never fail? What are you running? All servers fail, the question is how easily and under what conditions. Perhaps you're running some sort of Sun system with several power supplies, raid, and redundancy on every other componenent? I hope you're not running Linux; as we all know, there are probably several bugs in the most recent releases that have yet to be fixed.
Yes, a server SHOULD nevery fail. But don't expect that to be the reality when you're spending $5000 or so on your total setup. You're probably thinking about $70,000+ plus systems that may even include extra computers for when big problems arise.
So what if Mac OS X server can fail? So can Linux, BSDs, etc. More intereesting issues are: how long will it take apple to fix this? and, once MacOS X server is a mature product (6 months, a year) will it be safer than other server platforms (unices, etc) because it is so much easier for an unexperienced sysadmin to configure?
Why not a moderator choice of "Wrong!" I've moderated a couple times and often see postings that are simply factually incorrect or uninformed. Sometimes, these even SEEM "informative" to moderators who may not know about the topic being discussed.
On a lighter note, why not a "Poster needs another beer" option for whiny posts. Or a "moderator needs another beer"...
How many ports do you want them to make. Ideally, they have to ship a _finished_ product at some point soon. Making ports all sorts of nonessential hardware is the last thing they need to be doing NOW.
Yes, Apple is totally suspect for making both hardware and SW. It's horrible how I never have to deal with device drivers and have never had a hardware incompatibility problem. It's also really bad that my OS is optimized for the chip and technologies that I'm running it on. God, how awful!
Why not try a Powerbook G3 with a DVD drive and decoder and a remote control app. I've used mine to play movies (on the lcd screen) and have hooked it up to my TV. A friend has a remote control that works with his. DVD player is scriptable. Sure, it's a damn expensive DVD player but, oh yeah, you get a computer too.
Oh, it also happens to play pretty much any other digital media you can throw at it. But, the cool thing is, all the executives with their toshibas and tiny lcds at airports who look at this thing with green envy. I digress, but it funny.
It might be more appropriate to say that Intel chips aren't _completely_ horrible. IBM knows what's up with chip design and fab. Unfortunately, their consumer marketing and resistance (in the past) to enter/leverage partnerships sorta torpedoed the ppc (as far as market dominance goes). why not "IBM makes nice enough commercials too."
My newspaper, the Dartmouth Review, bought our domain name several years ago. Unfortunately, it seems our ex-Internet guy at the time registered it to himself and now operates a business from that site. We're currently trying to legally compell him to hand over the address, but this takes time, patience, and money. It is quite a pain in the ass. And apparently, his site www.dartmouthreview.com gets over 5000 hits/month intended for our site, www.dartrevew.com. I welcome this development.
--Andrew Grossman grossdog@dartmouth.edu
Re:Russian Army has fasted FTP server
on
wcarchive Upgraded
·
· Score: 1
Oh wow, it was on Russian news! Well, it certainly must be true, then!
Russian news and news feeds should be taken with a pound or two of salt. I don't doubt that they have an ftp server, but it's prolly not the fastest in the world. 'Sides, with their money crunch, how many ppl over there (civilians and military) have computers anyway?
That could be a few years off. The mvoie industry hasn't yet figured out how to distributed movies digitally on a practical scale (first digitally distrbuted movie=the new star wars. only to two theaters). Film is very high quality. Think about how big the scan of a _single_ 35 mm picture is (assuming hi-rez, etc). Multiply that by a few hundred thousand, and you have a nearly theater-quality film, minus the sound. How much is a nice, hi-rez image? Let's say 75-100 mb. Even allowing for compression (but not too much; don;t want fossils/mosaics), your near theater quality film is going to be pretty giant. the best one can expect in the near future is "nasty TV quality," which is fine, i guess, if you just want to see the movie, but not so great if you REALLY want to see it (ie, a low-rez version on a computer monitor or TV isn't exactly the best way to watch any FILM, IMHO). Watching a film this way (and in most "home theater" systems, which are, to be honest, coplete rip-offs that sacrifice audio quality for mediocre gimmicks, but that's another rant) doesn't convey the full effect. Films are meant to be watched in public (yes, the audience matters!), on a big screen, with a good print, and, ideally, with excellent cound/acoustics. If you can do this in your home (ie, you have an in-home screening room) you can come very close to watching a film properly (excepting the audience; but nothing's perfect). If watching a poor quality movie on a computer screen with mediocre sound is your idea of a good time, don't bother. Go watch TV instead.
FYI, it's telecine, not telesync (at least that's what they're called in the industry). These can do what you say, but are VERY expensive. Not car expensive; try house expensive. These are used to go from film --> digital video for CG, DVD, HDTV, etc. Very cool devices. Also works for diferent film formats/emulsions/sizes depending on mdel/cusomizations.
I like the idea of OS software. much of it is very elegant and really powerful. In general, though, the interfaces suck. That's it.
I don't see why anybody would want to turn people off of Linux and ignore newbies. How else are people going to really start adopting this software. Simply put, the more people who use it, the more software will be written, the better it will get. Maybe Linux will get a desktop whose ease of use rivals the MacOS (in elegance, not stability which I won't even bring up). For many people GUIs are the fastest and easiest way to do things. Computers are tools, not ends unto themselves. Most people don't think, "Gee, I want to use a computer;" instead, they think about the tasks they want to accomplish, such as sending email, word processing, etc. Why make it difficult and cryptic for the vast majority of users to appease a few elitist "hackers?" What's next, is this gy going to start calling himself an 3l1t3 LiNuX d00d? How silly.
Slashdot Mirror
A very good friend of mine works for a NASA subcontractor. You remember stories from the military of $30 bolts, etc? Well, the same holds true for NASA. Space exploration, per se, isn't a bad idea, but the agency just spends TOO MUCH MOENY and gets TOO FEW RESULTS. See how cost effective our shuttle program is? It's not at all!
It was supposed to allow dozens of flights per year at a reasonable cost per each. Now, it's ony a few/year at a cost that could probably build a single launch vehicle each time.
Maybe it's time to kill NASA and either create a new agency or fund developments in the private sector for government use.
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
If you have a CS degree, most employers assume that means you spent at least 4 years dedicated to learning your subject matter. The fact is that most college students today spend their 4+ years trying to get a degree while learning as little as possible.
Yeah! When I was in college, we really busted our balls day and night to REALLY understand our computers. I could build an ENIAC from scratch in an afternoon. I'd like to see a college brat today do that!
In my Junior year, I spent the 3 weeks before fall term finals awake, studying. These kids today get 'A's if they're awake during the exam.
Before they gave me my BA, I had to build a pocket calculator capable of 3 dimentional plotting and rotation from only the disassembled guts of an FM radio and using only my teeth (OK, I will admit that I did use my left eyebrow once to nudge in a capacitor I was soldering).
Get real! There have always been lazy and motivated students; when you went to college, at least when my father went to college, and now when I'm in college. I'm not a CS major (anthropology, if it matters), but I'm seriously impressed with many of the students who are (even in their sophomore years). You're prolly going to start spouting off "when I was your age" stories next, right? *kidding*
Maybe it's just because of the school I'm at, but everybody seems to be working damned hard and learning quite a bit.
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
let's see, breaking 40 bit encryption on the fly from an area 150 ft. from my transmitter. I really don't think that's a huge security risk, myself. Especially, b/c if you're doing something very sensitive, you can add extra encryption in the application layer. I think it would prolly be easier to physically break into your network than reliably and consistantly capture and decrypt AirPort transmissions.
Anyway, if you've got the AirPort thing in your home, a cracker would likely have to be on your property if ot in your house to compromise it. I'd go for tapping into someone's ethernet any day over AirPort snooping. Assuming, of course, that I did such annoying things.
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
With the andover buyout and all, what about slashdot.com? It seems some other co is using it to redirect into their site. Don't have time to do a whois so I'll leave that to someone else.
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
I don't see how the "next-generation" amiga OS bears any resemblence to the original. It would be one thing if they were trying to modernize the original, but now it seems like they're creating yet another proprietary niche OS and slapping the Amiga name (and perhaps part of the UI) on it.
From what I can see, it is completely different from the orginal save for the name. I'm not even sure why loyal Amigans would be in for this; I'm not so cynical to believe that OS loyalty can be based on the name of the OS alone.
So, what's the point? You want a propritary multimedia OS, get Be. You want a powerful OS that runs on many platforms, get a Linux distro. You want a 'NIX-derivative that has a pretty GUI, get MacOS X.
I did find it pretty funny, though, when the Amiga prez said that that Amigans shouldn't worry, the hardware platform will be "unique." Is that supposed to be a feature?
OK, I admit, I'm not a big Amiga user, though I have used friends' several times.
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
For many companies, including ISPs, educational institutions, etc, the cost of an OS is irrelevent. To spend $400 or so on a server OS is completely worth it if it will be easier to use/maintain. In the scheme of things, having someone work for just a few more hours on a linux than on a Mac OS X server defeats the cost savings of linux.
Unless you know what you're doing and have a capable staff, linux is easy to buy into and expensive to keep up with.
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
I can't just because I'm not an engineer nor do I play one on TV. Nor am I even a CS major (anthropology). I can't say WHY (what inherant features within the OS) BSDs appear to work better than Linux for many serving applications, they just do. I've found them to be somewhat faster and more reliable. Why? Well, you'll have to ask the developers. I just use what works.
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
I realize that this might be seen as flame-bait, but if you have a 486 lying around that you want to make into a small workgroup server, a BSD is probably the way to go. Yes, Linux does run fairly well on such hardware, but BSDs (at least FreeBSD, with which I've had the most experience) seems to run better. No stats, figures, etc., this is just personal experience.
If you want set up a free UNIX [-like] workstation, I would recommend Linux for a variety of reasons (which I won't cover here. It's late). But, for me, when I'm putting together a server, I tend to go with BSDs. For that purpose, they just work better. It's simple a question of the proper tool for the job, not advocacy, religion, or otherwise. If I'm doing graphical work or word processing, I prefer to use a Mac, even though I guess I could run the GIMP and some office app on a 'NIX box.
If you're serving lots of data and want a ridiculously reliable system, I would say to go with a BSD although I would never use it as a desktop OS.
To paraphrase, use what works best for the task at hand, Linux, BSD, or otherwise.
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
I thought that a netbsd came out recently for ppcs, even nubus ones. any word on this, anyone?
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
Sorta off-topic, but...
try:
http://www.vmac.org
to emulate an OLD macintosh. Requires ROM images which, acquired legally, can cost $40. Haven't used it in a couple versions, but, at the time, it was pretty bad.
http://www.ardi.com
A clean room implementation of the MacOS, circa system 7. No extensions, massive incompatibilities, pretty fast. It's still under active development by a team of monkeys, but their progress is somewhat slow.
http://www.emulators.com
The have a hw/sw emulator called the Gemulator. Never tried it.
Good luck.
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
easy. at 3 am:
make all
go to sleep.
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
Buy an imac. duh.
Reasons:
1. They're cheap. My office just picked up a first generation one for $600 even. Not bad.
2. If you're inclined, they run linux very well. Why force yourself to buy intel and pay MS taxes? PPCs run linux and, telnetting in, I'd bet $$$ that no one could tell the difference (though it might be a little faster).
3. It runs MacOS. At the very least, it's no worse than windows and has the advantage of not ginving money to MS or boosting their market share. One could go so far as to claim that it's a great productivity OS, but, if that's not your cup of tea, see #3. Also, MacOS is somewhat more robust than in the past. I have a month of uptime on this computer. Not bad for an OS previously reknowned for some spectacular crashing.
4. They're designed well. Little desktop realestate, easy to set up, and work well as smart terminals. Because they're so cheap, we bought one for everyone in the office. 10 mins of setup time each, and they work great.
To summarize, if you're a linux geek and have imac envy, you're an idiot or 'platform bigot.'
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
The 20th aniv. mac has (as already noted) Bosre speakers. It looks, a bit, like several models of Bang&olufson CD players. A bit, however. To say it was a ripoff would be akin to calling the imac an sgi ripoff because they both use colored plastics. Sure, the same inventiveness in design exists (and a sort of parodic modern sleekness), but, beyond that, similarities end.
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
"...both suck"
Hmmmm. Let me guess: you do all your image editing, word processing, and other work on a 'NIX box, right? Well, for the other 98% of us, both are tolerable, either out of elegance and ease-of-use or corporate requirement.
Oh, and like most other computers (for now), if one sets up their MacOS system properly, it doesn't really crash. I kow my laptop here has been up for two weeks (and only went down then when I unplugged it w/o putting in a battery. oops!). Fortunately, it's entirely easier to set up than 'doze or any 'NIX. I've never had any driver problems either, but that may just be me. Don't even get me started, though, on @%#@#!! IRQs!
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
1. NeXt, A/UX? Hmmm, Apple's never made a server OS before...?
2. A sever should never fail? What are you running? All servers fail, the question is how easily and under what conditions. Perhaps you're running some sort of Sun system with several power supplies, raid, and redundancy on every other componenent? I hope you're not running Linux; as we all know, there are probably several bugs in the most recent releases that have yet to be fixed.
Yes, a server SHOULD nevery fail. But don't expect that to be the reality when you're spending $5000 or so on your total setup. You're probably thinking about $70,000+ plus systems that may even include extra computers for when big problems arise.
So what if Mac OS X server can fail? So can Linux, BSDs, etc. More intereesting issues are:
how long will it take apple to fix this?
and, once MacOS X server is a mature product (6 months, a year) will it be safer than other server platforms (unices, etc) because it is so much easier for an unexperienced sysadmin to configure?
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
Why not a moderator choice of "Wrong!" I've moderated a couple times and often see postings that are simply factually incorrect or uninformed. Sometimes, these even SEEM "informative" to moderators who may not know about the topic being discussed.
On a lighter note, why not a "Poster needs another beer" option for whiny posts.
Or a "moderator needs another beer"...
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
How many ports do you want them to make. Ideally, they have to ship a _finished_ product at some point soon. Making ports all sorts of nonessential hardware is the last thing they need to be doing NOW.
Yes, Apple is totally suspect for making both hardware and SW. It's horrible how I never have to deal with device drivers and have never had a hardware incompatibility problem. It's also really bad that my OS is optimized for the chip and technologies that I'm running it on. God, how awful!
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
Why not try a Powerbook G3 with a DVD drive and decoder and a remote control app. I've used mine to play movies (on the lcd screen) and have hooked it up to my TV. A friend has a remote control that works with his. DVD player is scriptable. Sure, it's a damn expensive DVD player but, oh yeah, you get a computer too.
Oh, it also happens to play pretty much any other digital media you can throw at it. But, the cool thing is, all the executives with their toshibas and tiny lcds at airports who look at this thing with green envy. I digress, but it funny.
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
nice enough?
It might be more appropriate to say that Intel chips aren't _completely_ horrible. IBM knows what's up with chip design and fab. Unfortunately, their consumer marketing and resistance (in the past) to enter/leverage partnerships sorta torpedoed the ppc (as far as market dominance goes).
why not "IBM makes nice enough commercials too."
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
Do a web search for "alternic" to find info on this. It was tried, in a way.
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
My newspaper, the Dartmouth Review, bought our domain name several years ago. Unfortunately, it seems our ex-Internet guy at the time registered it to himself and now operates a business from that site. We're currently trying to legally compell him to hand over the address, but this takes time, patience, and money. It is quite a pain in the ass. And apparently, his site www.dartmouthreview.com gets over 5000 hits/month intended for our site, www.dartrevew.com.
I welcome this development.
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
Oh wow, it was on Russian news! Well, it certainly must be true, then!
Russian news and news feeds should be taken with a pound or two of salt. I don't doubt that they have an ftp server, but it's prolly not the fastest in the world. 'Sides, with their money crunch, how many ppl over there (civilians and military) have computers anyway?
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
"look nearly as good as the theater versions"...
That could be a few years off. The mvoie industry hasn't yet figured out how to distributed movies digitally on a practical scale (first digitally distrbuted movie=the new star wars. only to two theaters). Film is very high quality. Think about how big the scan of a _single_ 35 mm picture is (assuming hi-rez, etc). Multiply that by a few hundred thousand, and you have a nearly theater-quality film, minus the sound. How much is a nice, hi-rez image? Let's say 75-100 mb. Even allowing for compression (but not too much; don;t want fossils/mosaics), your near theater quality film is going to be pretty giant. the best one can expect in the near future is "nasty TV quality," which is fine, i guess, if you just want to see the movie, but not so great if you REALLY want to see it (ie, a low-rez version on a computer monitor or TV isn't exactly the best way to watch any FILM, IMHO).
Watching a film this way (and in most "home theater" systems, which are, to be honest, coplete rip-offs that sacrifice audio quality for mediocre gimmicks, but that's another rant) doesn't convey the full effect. Films are meant to be watched in public (yes, the audience matters!), on a big screen, with a good print, and, ideally, with excellent cound/acoustics. If you can do this in your home (ie, you have an in-home screening room) you can come very close to watching a film properly (excepting the audience; but nothing's perfect).
If watching a poor quality movie on a computer screen with mediocre sound is your idea of a good time, don't bother. Go watch TV instead.
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
FYI, it's telecine, not telesync (at least that's what they're called in the industry). These can do what you say, but are VERY expensive. Not car expensive; try house expensive. These are used to go from film --> digital video for CG, DVD, HDTV, etc. Very cool devices. Also works for diferent film formats/emulsions/sizes depending on mdel/cusomizations.
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
I like the idea of OS software. much of it is very elegant and really powerful. In general, though, the interfaces suck. That's it.
I don't see why anybody would want to turn people off of Linux and ignore newbies. How else are people going to really start adopting this software. Simply put, the more people who use it, the more software will be written, the better it will get. Maybe Linux will get a desktop whose ease of use rivals the MacOS (in elegance, not stability which I won't even bring up). For many people GUIs are the fastest and easiest way to do things. Computers are tools, not ends unto themselves. Most people don't think, "Gee, I want to use a computer;" instead, they think about the tasks they want to accomplish, such as sending email, word processing, etc. Why make it difficult and cryptic for the vast majority of users to appease a few elitist "hackers?" What's next, is this gy going to start calling himself an 3l1t3 LiNuX d00d? How silly.
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu