Perhaps this is too obvious, but this seems to have a few fatal flaws. If the article resolves them somehow, I'd be happy to hear, but I don't have a NY Times account and don't really want one.
First, people don't watch movies on their computer. I spend about 15x more time on my computers than in front of a TV, but I still watch all of my movies on TV (mostly for the screen size, my chair and sound are superior on my computers). For most people they have larger screens, better sound, more comfortable seating for a group, etc.
Perhaps the most obvious is the 500 mb download. I rarely make such large downloads with my cable connection at home and network connection at work (1/2 T1 now, soon to be full T1). In fact, the only downloads I can think of that large are Linux distribution CDs, of which I have several. Why spend 30 minutes or much, much longer when I can make it to the video store, rent, and travel time both ways in about 20 minutes? We don't really need internet bandwidth sucked so much by having movies sent around - I'd rather see more streaming sources personally.
So of all internet users, only those with high bandwidth connections can use the service. There goes a good deal of potential customers. I don't think there is much of a market left. I actually think that DivX (the rentable DvDs that diabled themselves) had more chance of succeeding than this ill-fated concept.
Of course, since these are so obvious I hope the article dealt with them.
I guess the point of this letter was to try to convince Linux fans that Chapter 11 wasn't the end of the world, that Loki wasn't going under.
I think Loki needs to not only restructure its debts, it needs to restructure its business practice. Instead of paying hefty royalties to produce Linux versions of games that are already released, perhaps Loki could focus on more "timeless" games. You know, the games that aren't based on the latest and greatest graphics (Tribes 2) and aren't any fun after a year. They're expensive to produce, require high-end hardware, and only have a short 1-2 year shelf life before nobody wants it.
I think Loki could make a fair amount of money creating a unique game and producing it for both Windows and Linux. I'm not convinced that money can be made in the porting business, but a well-run game design place can. Focus all of Loki on one good game, of whatever genre, and market it well. Sell both Linux and Windows versions. If you buy one version, you should be able to get a 50% or more off the price of the other version. Sure, Loki can still port a game or two (c'mon, port Civ III - I'll pay $50 for it!). I high-end game companies have a hard time making profits off of games because of expensive development costs. Loki has a solid base of games that work great and can generate some revenue while they develop their own games that have a sensible budget.
Too many game companies are focusing on great graphics and the latest 3D cards. Instead, the focus should be on playability and creativity. If Loki makes a great game and has a version for Linux and Windows, it's sure to make a good chunk of money.
Mandrake will not allow you to install packages if you don't tell it you have the second CD. It's very convenient like that. Nonetheless, it includes good software, I'd get it if possible.
As for Red Hat, it's practically a requirement if you go beyond the standard distribution. If you decide you want XEmacs, for example, it's on the second CD. No warning whatsoever (Grr), and you end up restarting the install process. My guess is you went with a default install like workstation.
I always liked to look at Loki as the poster child for proprietary Linux software development. I told people who doubted that Linux could have paid software to look at Loki, and how it sold ports of popular games. I was very, very close to getting Call to Power for Linux. Unfortunately, I found out that Call to Power II was already out for Windows, and I just had to get the newer version. I wish I would've gotten the older Linux version, I've heard it's stable and many of the playing features are nicer than the Windows version of CTP I. CTP II has crashed on me a few times and I needed a patch and mod pack to make it worth playing. It's a mistake I don't feel like spending another $30 to correct.
This Kohad game looks very promising though. I probably won't get it right away, but if Loki is around for another 6 months I'd definately consider it for my next game purchase (I never buy FPS, I prefer strategy and RTS, and Kohad looks like a perfect balance between the two).
I wonder how much per game Loki has to pay in royalties, that has to kill the bottom line.
Funny, before Linux I never really felt company loyalty. I'm no fanatic, but I like seeing companies that compete with Microsoft with good products prosper (Red Hat, Mandrake, Progeny, Loki, etc). I'm not even that partial to Linux, I just like *nix better, and I would definately consider using a *BSD for my next play computer or test server.
Oh, and to those that whine about Loki games being released long after the Windows version, look at Tribes 2. It was out 2 weeks or so after the Windows version. Too bad retailers are actually taking a loss to get the foot traffic in their stores to sell the Windows version.
Perhaps the overall Linux desktop audience needs to grow a bit to include people who feel more comfortable plunking down chunks of money for good software. I myself haven't even bought a distribution yet after two years, but I haven't quite found the perfect distro for me yet after trying a few.
In short, if you're looking to kill some time, go buy a Loki game and support a company who's given back a fair share both in free software (the SDK looks cool) and excellent software (I've heard little but rave reviews).
When I started using Linux a few years ago, I began with Red Hat 5.1 on a 486 66 Mhz computer (it was my only spare computer to mess with). It didn't really have any difficult hardware, except for a proprietary cd-rom drive. This was my first real experience in a *nix, coming from a relatively long DOS and Windows background.
From my experience the most frustrating part of learning Linux is getting all or most of a computer's hardware to work properly. For a long time I had no sound card that Linux supported. Fortunately, hardware support and automatic detection has improved tremendously. Now many ethernet cards, video cards, and sound cards are automatically detected by various Linux installs. CD-ROMS are almost always compatible with standard IDE and SCSI drivers. I believe that new users to Linux should be focusing on learning to install software, use popular software, and learn his/her way around a shell. Learning Linux shouldn't be mostly about learning how to install Linux, and this is where a few distributions have made great progress.
As your first distribution, I would recommend Mandrake. I have been a Red Hat user since my first install (and administering Red Hat based Cobalt servers). Red Hat's install (both graphical and text based) are reasonable for a new user, but they don't explain things as thoroughly as Mandrake. I installed Mandrake a few times and was fairly impressed with the installer and explanation, but it's a little too annoying to non-newbies. However, a new user simply wanting to toy with Linux would probably be best served by starting out with Mandrake.
Mandrake is nice that they are a download-friendly distribution. No other distribution is as easy to find in downloadable iso form. Yes, Red Hat offers it, but they promote their pay package far more than Mandrake does..companies like making it no-so-obvious that they can get it for free. I can't blame them. Also, Debian offers downloads, but their website isn't as easy to navigate and I'd hardly consider Debian a newbie-friendly install. Visit the mirror list for mandrake to download the install isos. There are two iso images to burn to cd-rom using common software like Easy CD Creator. If interested in Redhat, the mirror list offers a variety of sites to find both RPM files (for individual software install) and iso images.
However, buying a boxed set may be worthwhile for a new user. No need for big downloads, a cd-writer, and figuring out how to install. These include support and an installation manual.
I find computer books extremely helpful in learning a new operating system or programming language. Yes, website and forums are available, but a book is generally arranged quite well for new users. My first book was "Red Hat Linux Unleashed", that huge orange book. It included Red Hat 5.2 (though I already had 5.1 installed by that time), and had a few chapters on installation. Then, as I needed a reference or wanted to learn about setting up new services, I just read through the appropriate chapter. Though many disagree, I find it most helpful to have a large comprehensive book that covers all topics lightly to give a user a start. From there many websites provide the detailed information required to complete a task. I found the how-tos helpful in most cases.
So, in short, get Mandrake (or possibly Red Hat), get a good book or two (buy from a bookstore to be able to flip through it and see if it seems right, while also looking online to find reviews). Once you get the feel of using Linux a bit - take a look at other distributions (Progeny is a nice entry into the Debian world, for example).
This case seems to fit most of your requirements. It's actually closer to a cube than anything, but a really nice use of acryllic. The entire top sorta splits off to reveal the guts of the case. However, everything is mounted in front, along with adequate cooling.
In fact, this case was the inspiration for my own clear case. However, I didn't want to spend as much time/money/energy as this guy did, so I kept the metal interior of a cheap mini-tower. Besides replacing the boring beige with clear acrylic, the real useful bit I added was a hinged side panel with thumb screws. I absolutely love it. After putting enough system cooling with it, my next project is to mount some low heat (probably LED based) lighting to the inside. I want my case to glow softly =).
But as for your connections in front - I wouldn't want that. I'd rather have the inconvenience because excessive cables are simply an eyesore. USB, firewire, video in, and headphones would be the real ports I'd want available in front. But, to each their own - good luck building this if you get into it - acryllic can be annoying to work with. One tip: though it's harder to cut, buy thicker acryllic. If you go with th thinner stuff like I did, you'll lose potential stability that the acryllic can offer.
Now, for a better question. Are high-end motherboards worth the money?
Every penny.
In the many, many computers I have built and fixed (I don't know how many hundred..I never counted), one thing became crystal clear: don't skimp out with a cheap motherboard in order to buy that next higher-up processor.
Motherboards are not created equal, not even close. In fact, from my experience, they are either the cause of good reliability or they are to blame for crashes and instability (in terms of hardware). Buying a good chipset put together by a good hardware manufacturer (Abit, Asus, etc.) is key to building a reliable system that will last several years of hard use.
A good review site for motherboards will describe not only the features it has but how those features are laid out. A well designed motherboard has shorter interconnects and well placed components. Also, a motherboard should have a nice array of capacitors that keep maintain the electricity going to the processor. There should be ample room around the processor to stick the larger and better cooling cpu fans (another things never to skimp on). A heatsink and fan on some of the chipsets helps to improve reliability.
But from my experience the best part about going with a better name is a reduced likelihood of getting a dud. I ordered a cheap Soyo motherboard to fit a K6-2 450 Mhz processor I had sitting around - I wanted a cheap computer. The first one was a dud, the second one was a dud. I ended up going with a different manufacturer and getting a 750 Mhz Duron. I had previously purchased an Abit with a Duron 700 Mhz and had no problems whatsoever. You pay about $20-$30 more for the motherboard, but it's definately worth every penny.
In short, don't bother spending that extra $30 to get however many more Mhz, or even to get the difference between a PIII and Celeron or Athlon and Duron. More important than speed in most systems in reliability, and for that you should plunk your spare dollars into the motherboard and a decent heat sink/fan.
Re:Craziness with transcendental and imaginary #s
on
Share The Pi!
·
· Score: 2
Thanks. I always knew that not writing down the derivations in class would catch me at some point =).
Well, in one case they already did. In my Calc III class my professor proved a relatively simple theorem and promptly put that theorem on the first page of the test. I wrote the theorem down, but I never really committed it to memory. That was one of the few tests I got a B on...oh well.
Re:Craziness with transcendental and imaginary #s
on
Share The Pi!
·
· Score: 2
Ok. The standard solution for solving e^(i*A*X) was useful for solving second-order differential equations (ordinary form: P(x)y" + Q(x)y' + R(x)y = G(x) ) . My notes are sparse and my brain is tired, so I'd rather not try to remember the whole series of steps required to get to the part where this is actually useful. If you want the long version of the proof, ok, I'll post it tomorrow if you say so.
I'm not even sure if this was derived in class or just one of those few equations that were given to us "just trust me" sorta things. I had the bad habit of rarely writing down proofs, so I'd probably have to hunt this one down online or in my of my Calc books.
But, magically, here in my notes it says:
e^(i x B[beta] * x) = cos (Bx) + isin Bx .
My apologies for not desiring to hunt down the appropriate symbols.
So, with B = Pi and x = 1, you get:
e^(i*Pi) = cos Pi + isin Pi .
The cosine of Pi is -1 and the sine of Pi is 0, so it becomes = -1 + (i)*0 = -1 . Notice that e^(-i*Pi) also gives -1.
So in summary it really wasn't much of a feat for me to reproduce the final parts of the proof, only a matter of remembering what that standard equation was (shortcuts are wonderful things). Let me know if you really want me to derive the top part though.
Craziness with transcendental and imaginary #s
on
Share The Pi!
·
· Score: 3
Trying to imagine why every n digit number shows up the exact same amount of times is hard to imagine at first. But then, once you think about it, on an infinite scale, it would seem to attest to Pi's true randomness.
On a side note, I had a Calc II professor awhile back that wrote on the board:
e^(i*Pi) = -1 (of course, using the real symbols).
Then, he proved it. I have the proof written down in a notebook and I even managed to work through the final parts of the proof (it uses a standard solution for finding e^(i*A*X) without using it. If anyone is really interested in seeing it, I can post it (in rough ascii math =) For those of you with TI-92s that don't believe me, type it in. That magical machine can do more than I give it credit for sometimes.
Anyway, I just thought it was absolutely incredible that you could mix the two most popular transcendental numbers with the imaginary number (square root of -1) and spit out plain old -1.
One of my favorite sites for news and nicely displayed info (weather, stocks, news) was my.yahoo.com. Recently, Yahoo has been putting up these annoying pop-under ads on many news pages.
As much as I love the "free web", I fully understand the need for these web companies to feed their bottom line. Ads just aren't cutting it. Affiliate networks aren't cutting it. Face it, to get good content you simply have to pay for it. Or at least pay for a good share of it. I, for one, am quite willing to pay a yearly fee so I can get ad-free (or button ad only) service. Granted, I'm not full of money, so it has to be affordable. Say, $20. Sure, it can have a banner ad on each page, but only one (like Slashdot), and definately no popups.
I don't mind if Yahoo were to target their ads towards me, because good advertising can be just as useful as a good link or review (I can't tell you how many nifty Think Geek ads I have seen - if anyone who helped to make those happens to be reading - great job!). I'd rather they not keep each and every exact article I viewed and for how long, but a tally of sites is fine(for example, if it tallies how many tech and world news articles I've read vs. sports). Most importantly, my data cannot be sold, and I'd like to know as specifically as possible in their privacy policy what they do collect, and preferably for how long.
My problem is, I have found absolutely no way to express to Yahoo management that I desire this feature. Unlike most web sites, I simply cannot find a feedback feature for the web site in general or for My Yahoo!. If anyone could point this out to me, I'd be very happy to send off a feature-request e-mail.
On a related note, I'm off to try the Wall Street Journal Online Edition for 14 days. I've been a print subscriber for 3 years now, but I just let it cancel because it's expensive for non-students and generates a lot of paper. Instead, I'm going to try out the online version which includes all of the print articles plus other features for half the cost. They don't have to print and ship, I don't have to waste the paper and pay as much. This is why I love online content.
Good idea, I didn't really consider it (seemed too cold to use to keep things just above freezing). However, dry ice is easier to obtain for most people.
I have to admit, this hack to cool a bunch of beers is truly amusing. However, the best part about the article was the author's witty humor:
"If I ever do get a car it will be something to tinker with and be small, old and British. Just like my mum. "
"A closer inspection of the can shows how it quite clearly states 'SERVE EXTRA COLD'. It is interesting to note that here is one of few times a bloke will actually read the instructions for anything. Ever. "
and so on.
Although a jet engine is a fast and furious way to cool beer, I present a few practical and impractical alternatives to accomplish the same task.
1.) Duh. Buy a mini-refridgerator/freezer. Set it to the coldest setting possible. If no power is available in a given shed (though this was his garage), run a nice long extension cord from the house. This should get below 5 degrees Celcius. This solution is costly, slow, and gets no points for creativity. Moving along...
2. Dry ice. Dry ice is much colder than freezing temperature, but properly insulated it could serve to create a long-lasting ice box from which to cool the beer. Care must be taken not to bring the beer to freezing point, as that would obviously ruin it and damage the cans. Obtaining more dry ice is annoying, but so is obtaining more propane.
3.) My memory of chemical reactions fails me, but I do recall a variety of endothermic (takes in heat from surroundings) reactions that could be employed to draw away heat from the cans of beer. However, most reactions I recall would require vast quantities in order to cool to the desired temperature. Nonetheless, put in a well-insulated device, with some sort of quantitative control over chemical reaction, this could work. What would be even cooler (no pun intended) is to have an automatic temperature monitor that would mix more chemicals when the temperature got above a certain point. Yes, essentially a thermostat for an endothermic reaction.
You are assuming that the 13-18 age group has only been playing computer games for a few years. This may apply to most people, but it doesn't apply to me.
I started using a computer at age 3. I am now 17. I remember quite distinctly playing all of the Zorks (though I only really tried to play the first), text based action games like Castle, Trinity, Moonmist, etc. on my vast array of 5 1/4" floppies (it helped that my two older brothers liked computers, so I just sorta picked up their stuff and played with it).
In the early 90s I got myself into BBSes. These games, to me, were more fun to play than the single person text adventures. My favorite games were TradeWars and The Pit. You compete against fellow people and build up your character with additional equipment, money, score, etc. I have always loved this genre of gaming - the idea of a multiplayer environment where one can combine strategy, trade, time, and brainless searching/killing to create an awesome character to play.
Not surprisingly, I got into MUDs for a few years. At the same time I played Civ II and Star Craft more than I'd really like to admit. I would play a FPS here or there for a very short time, but they got boring very quickly. On the other hand, Civ II and Star Craft have absolutely unmatched replay power. I also played Zork: Grand Inquisitor, but never really got into it.
I suppose that's one thing I don't really like about the Zork series - you finish the game, and it's infinitely easier to beat a second time, because you've done all of the puzzles (except in games like Monkey Island which have difficulty settings - great idea!).
Yes, Zork and it's derivatives are fun, but I'd take a strategy/building game over it any day for sheer replayability.
Excellent, thank you. It would seem like Kdevelop and KDE Studio are competing quite effectively to create two awesome products.
I must admit that I've been following the development of Kdevelop for some time, and it would seem that both projects share each other's code to some extent. Kdevelop, for example, is now looking to add the code completion code from KDE Studio. I would imagine that KDE Studio has benefited to some extent from Kdevelop code as well.
I'm going to check out the features of KDE Studio a little more closely, and if they are significantly better than that of Kdevelop, I will definately consider purchasing your product.
Has anyone used both and wants to give a little recommendation?
I'm hoping someone familiar with TheKompany and KDE Studio can answer a few questions for me.
From my understanding, KDE Studio used to be fully open source, but they stopped releasing that version with 2.0.
Now they have KDE Studio Gold, a commercial version at what seem to be reasonable prices. I have absolutely no problem with commericial software and commercial open source software. My question is, is KDE Studio Gold still open source? (not as in free FTP download but source included with purchase). From my understanding TheKompany has every right to take their old Open Source code, and since they own the copyright for everything, release it as a commercial product with no code available.
Can someone please tell me what it is they did?
Also, it would seem their web site needs a little work... the KDE Studio page talks about pre-ordering the software in February 2001.
True, in Perl you don't have to declare variables. But good Perl programming is done with "use strict". I'm not an expert Perl programmer, so correct me if I'm wrong, but "use strict" requires programmers to be a little more careful to prevent errors. Variables must be declared in scope (global or local with my), along with other restrictions. Granted, you don't have to declare a datatype (other than indicate it's a scalar, array, or hash).
The things that seem to make Perl a great scripting language is that the syntax is moderately human readable (though it does have many symbols that can be confusing to newcomers). Also, Perl has great modules for CGI and text parsing, so that programmers don't have to reinvent the wheel. This makes many common CGI tasks a snap in Perl, while it may be more difficult in C (or a C scripting language).
We are simply a little ISP, with an old Cisco 1603 router, out of standard warranty (we paid for no additional tech support). Just last week we called to get some questions answered, and I had an excellent conversation with a friendly Cisco technician that answered every question - even ones unrelated to my original case. The best part? It was for free, a "courtesy call" since we've never needed any kind of tech support before.
I've actually had a string of really good tech support stories recently - some companies get it right, and they in turn have a very loyal customer. And a shareholder - I own stock in Cisco (I bought right above their recent 52 week low =).
Chances are, customers of Cisco will have as good of tech support experiences as many of us attest.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps this is too obvious, but this seems to have a few fatal flaws. If the article resolves them somehow, I'd be happy to hear, but I don't have a NY Times account and don't really want one.
First, people don't watch movies on their computer. I spend about 15x more time on my computers than in front of a TV, but I still watch all of my movies on TV (mostly for the screen size, my chair and sound are superior on my computers). For most people they have larger screens, better sound, more comfortable seating for a group, etc.
Perhaps the most obvious is the 500 mb download. I rarely make such large downloads with my cable connection at home and network connection at work (1/2 T1 now, soon to be full T1). In fact, the only downloads I can think of that large are Linux distribution CDs, of which I have several. Why spend 30 minutes or much, much longer when I can make it to the video store, rent, and travel time both ways in about 20 minutes? We don't really need internet bandwidth sucked so much by having movies sent around - I'd rather see more streaming sources personally.
So of all internet users, only those with high bandwidth connections can use the service. There goes a good deal of potential customers. I don't think there is much of a market left. I actually think that DivX (the rentable DvDs that diabled themselves) had more chance of succeeding than this ill-fated concept.
Of course, since these are so obvious I hope the article dealt with them.
I guess the point of this letter was to try to convince Linux fans that Chapter 11 wasn't the end of the world, that Loki wasn't going under.
I think Loki needs to not only restructure its debts, it needs to restructure its business practice. Instead of paying hefty royalties to produce Linux versions of games that are already released, perhaps Loki could focus on more "timeless" games. You know, the games that aren't based on the latest and greatest graphics (Tribes 2) and aren't any fun after a year. They're expensive to produce, require high-end hardware, and only have a short 1-2 year shelf life before nobody wants it.
I think Loki could make a fair amount of money creating a unique game and producing it for both Windows and Linux. I'm not convinced that money can be made in the porting business, but a well-run game design place can. Focus all of Loki on one good game, of whatever genre, and market it well. Sell both Linux and Windows versions. If you buy one version, you should be able to get a 50% or more off the price of the other version. Sure, Loki can still port a game or two (c'mon, port Civ III - I'll pay $50 for it!). I high-end game companies have a hard time making profits off of games because of expensive development costs. Loki has a solid base of games that work great and can generate some revenue while they develop their own games that have a sensible budget.
Too many game companies are focusing on great graphics and the latest 3D cards. Instead, the focus should be on playability and creativity. If Loki makes a great game and has a version for Linux and Windows, it's sure to make a good chunk of money.
Can we trust what anyone named Nixon says?
Nothing personal, but it was just sitting there begging to be said.
Mandrake will not allow you to install packages if you don't tell it you have the second CD. It's very convenient like that. Nonetheless, it includes good software, I'd get it if possible.
As for Red Hat, it's practically a requirement if you go beyond the standard distribution. If you decide you want XEmacs, for example, it's on the second CD. No warning whatsoever (Grr), and you end up restarting the install process. My guess is you went with a default install like workstation.
I always liked to look at Loki as the poster child for proprietary Linux software development. I told people who doubted that Linux could have paid software to look at Loki, and how it sold ports of popular games. I was very, very close to getting Call to Power for Linux. Unfortunately, I found out that Call to Power II was already out for Windows, and I just had to get the newer version. I wish I would've gotten the older Linux version, I've heard it's stable and many of the playing features are nicer than the Windows version of CTP I. CTP II has crashed on me a few times and I needed a patch and mod pack to make it worth playing. It's a mistake I don't feel like spending another $30 to correct.
This Kohad game looks very promising though. I probably won't get it right away, but if Loki is around for another 6 months I'd definately consider it for my next game purchase (I never buy FPS, I prefer strategy and RTS, and Kohad looks like a perfect balance between the two).
I wonder how much per game Loki has to pay in royalties, that has to kill the bottom line.
Funny, before Linux I never really felt company loyalty. I'm no fanatic, but I like seeing companies that compete with Microsoft with good products prosper (Red Hat, Mandrake, Progeny, Loki, etc). I'm not even that partial to Linux, I just like *nix better, and I would definately consider using a *BSD for my next play computer or test server.
Oh, and to those that whine about Loki games being released long after the Windows version, look at Tribes 2. It was out 2 weeks or so after the Windows version. Too bad retailers are actually taking a loss to get the foot traffic in their stores to sell the Windows version.
Perhaps the overall Linux desktop audience needs to grow a bit to include people who feel more comfortable plunking down chunks of money for good software. I myself haven't even bought a distribution yet after two years, but I haven't quite found the perfect distro for me yet after trying a few.
In short, if you're looking to kill some time, go buy a Loki game and support a company who's given back a fair share both in free software (the SDK looks cool) and excellent software (I've heard little but rave reviews).
Sorry, the link to Red Hat mirrors is http://www.redhat.com/mirrors.html.
When I started using Linux a few years ago, I began with Red Hat 5.1 on a 486 66 Mhz computer (it was my only spare computer to mess with). It didn't really have any difficult hardware, except for a proprietary cd-rom drive. This was my first real experience in a *nix, coming from a relatively long DOS and Windows background.
From my experience the most frustrating part of learning Linux is getting all or most of a computer's hardware to work properly. For a long time I had no sound card that Linux supported. Fortunately, hardware support and automatic detection has improved tremendously. Now many ethernet cards, video cards, and sound cards are automatically detected by various Linux installs. CD-ROMS are almost always compatible with standard IDE and SCSI drivers. I believe that new users to Linux should be focusing on learning to install software, use popular software, and learn his/her way around a shell. Learning Linux shouldn't be mostly about learning how to install Linux, and this is where a few distributions have made great progress.
As your first distribution, I would recommend Mandrake. I have been a Red Hat user since my first install (and administering Red Hat based Cobalt servers). Red Hat's install (both graphical and text based) are reasonable for a new user, but they don't explain things as thoroughly as Mandrake. I installed Mandrake a few times and was fairly impressed with the installer and explanation, but it's a little too annoying to non-newbies. However, a new user simply wanting to toy with Linux would probably be best served by starting out with Mandrake.
Mandrake is nice that they are a download-friendly distribution. No other distribution is as easy to find in downloadable iso form. Yes, Red Hat offers it, but they promote their pay package far more than Mandrake does..companies like making it no-so-obvious that they can get it for free. I can't blame them. Also, Debian offers downloads, but their website isn't as easy to navigate and I'd hardly consider Debian a newbie-friendly install. Visit the mirror list for mandrake to download the install isos. There are two iso images to burn to cd-rom using common software like Easy CD Creator. If interested in Redhat, the mirror list offers a variety of sites to find both RPM files (for individual software install) and iso images.
However, buying a boxed set may be worthwhile for a new user. No need for big downloads, a cd-writer, and figuring out how to install. These include support and an installation manual.
I find computer books extremely helpful in learning a new operating system or programming language. Yes, website and forums are available, but a book is generally arranged quite well for new users. My first book was "Red Hat Linux Unleashed", that huge orange book. It included Red Hat 5.2 (though I already had 5.1 installed by that time), and had a few chapters on installation. Then, as I needed a reference or wanted to learn about setting up new services, I just read through the appropriate chapter. Though many disagree, I find it most helpful to have a large comprehensive book that covers all topics lightly to give a user a start. From there many websites provide the detailed information required to complete a task. I found the how-tos helpful in most cases.
So, in short, get Mandrake (or possibly Red Hat), get a good book or two (buy from a bookstore to be able to flip through it and see if it seems right, while also looking online to find reviews). Once you get the feel of using Linux a bit - take a look at other distributions (Progeny is a nice entry into the Debian world, for example).
Good luck.
This case seems to fit most of your requirements. It's actually closer to a cube than anything, but a really nice use of acryllic. The entire top sorta splits off to reveal the guts of the case. However, everything is mounted in front, along with adequate cooling.
In fact, this case was the inspiration for my own clear case. However, I didn't want to spend as much time/money/energy as this guy did, so I kept the metal interior of a cheap mini-tower. Besides replacing the boring beige with clear acrylic, the real useful bit I added was a hinged side panel with thumb screws. I absolutely love it. After putting enough system cooling with it, my next project is to mount some low heat (probably LED based) lighting to the inside. I want my case to glow softly =).
But as for your connections in front - I wouldn't want that. I'd rather have the inconvenience because excessive cables are simply an eyesore. USB, firewire, video in, and headphones would be the real ports I'd want available in front. But, to each their own - good luck building this if you get into it - acryllic can be annoying to work with. One tip: though it's harder to cut, buy thicker acryllic. If you go with th thinner stuff like I did, you'll lose potential stability that the acryllic can offer.
Are High-End CPUs Worth The Money?
No.
Now, for a better question. Are high-end motherboards worth the money?
Every penny.
In the many, many computers I have built and fixed (I don't know how many hundred..I never counted), one thing became crystal clear: don't skimp out with a cheap motherboard in order to buy that next higher-up processor.
Motherboards are not created equal, not even close. In fact, from my experience, they are either the cause of good reliability or they are to blame for crashes and instability (in terms of hardware). Buying a good chipset put together by a good hardware manufacturer (Abit, Asus, etc.) is key to building a reliable system that will last several years of hard use.
A good review site for motherboards will describe not only the features it has but how those features are laid out. A well designed motherboard has shorter interconnects and well placed components. Also, a motherboard should have a nice array of capacitors that keep maintain the electricity going to the processor. There should be ample room around the processor to stick the larger and better cooling cpu fans (another things never to skimp on). A heatsink and fan on some of the chipsets helps to improve reliability.
But from my experience the best part about going with a better name is a reduced likelihood of getting a dud. I ordered a cheap Soyo motherboard to fit a K6-2 450 Mhz processor I had sitting around - I wanted a cheap computer. The first one was a dud, the second one was a dud. I ended up going with a different manufacturer and getting a 750 Mhz Duron. I had previously purchased an Abit with a Duron 700 Mhz and had no problems whatsoever. You pay about $20-$30 more for the motherboard, but it's definately worth every penny.
In short, don't bother spending that extra $30 to get however many more Mhz, or even to get the difference between a PIII and Celeron or Athlon and Duron. More important than speed in most systems in reliability, and for that you should plunk your spare dollars into the motherboard and a decent heat sink/fan.
Thanks. I always knew that not writing down the derivations in class would catch me at some point =).
Well, in one case they already did. In my Calc III class my professor proved a relatively simple theorem and promptly put that theorem on the first page of the test. I wrote the theorem down, but I never really committed it to memory. That was one of the few tests I got a B on...oh well.
Ok. The standard solution for solving e^(i*A*X) was useful for solving second-order differential equations (ordinary form: P(x)y" + Q(x)y' + R(x)y = G(x) ) . My notes are sparse and my brain is tired, so I'd rather not try to remember the whole series of steps required to get to the part where this is actually useful. If you want the long version of the proof, ok, I'll post it tomorrow if you say so.
I'm not even sure if this was derived in class or just one of those few equations that were given to us "just trust me" sorta things. I had the bad habit of rarely writing down proofs, so I'd probably have to hunt this one down online or in my of my Calc books.
But, magically, here in my notes it says:
e^(i x B[beta] * x) = cos (Bx) + isin Bx .
My apologies for not desiring to hunt down the appropriate symbols.
So, with B = Pi and x = 1, you get:
e^(i*Pi) = cos Pi + isin Pi .
The cosine of Pi is -1 and the sine of Pi is 0, so it becomes = -1 + (i)*0 = -1 . Notice that e^(-i*Pi) also gives -1.
So in summary it really wasn't much of a feat for me to reproduce the final parts of the proof, only a matter of remembering what that standard equation was (shortcuts are wonderful things). Let me know if you really want me to derive the top part though.
Trying to imagine why every n digit number shows up the exact same amount of times is hard to imagine at first. But then, once you think about it, on an infinite scale, it would seem to attest to Pi's true randomness.
On a side note, I had a Calc II professor awhile back that wrote on the board:
e^(i*Pi) = -1 (of course, using the real symbols).
Then, he proved it. I have the proof written down in a notebook and I even managed to work through the final parts of the proof (it uses a standard solution for finding e^(i*A*X) without using it. If anyone is really interested in seeing it, I can post it (in rough ascii math =) For those of you with TI-92s that don't believe me, type it in. That magical machine can do more than I give it credit for sometimes.
Anyway, I just thought it was absolutely incredible that you could mix the two most popular transcendental numbers with the imaginary number (square root of -1) and spit out plain old -1.
Oh yes..I was going to mention it, but it wasn't an X10 one, and it didn't come up for me on both computers, so it may be slightly random.
And I used to like Yahoo.
Tuesday's Foxtrot. Not updated yet on the official Foxtrot page.
One of my favorite sites for news and nicely displayed info (weather, stocks, news) was my.yahoo.com. Recently, Yahoo has been putting up these annoying pop-under ads on many news pages.
As much as I love the "free web", I fully understand the need for these web companies to feed their bottom line. Ads just aren't cutting it. Affiliate networks aren't cutting it. Face it, to get good content you simply have to pay for it. Or at least pay for a good share of it. I, for one, am quite willing to pay a yearly fee so I can get ad-free (or button ad only) service. Granted, I'm not full of money, so it has to be affordable. Say, $20. Sure, it can have a banner ad on each page, but only one (like Slashdot), and definately no popups.
I don't mind if Yahoo were to target their ads towards me, because good advertising can be just as useful as a good link or review (I can't tell you how many nifty Think Geek ads I have seen - if anyone who helped to make those happens to be reading - great job!). I'd rather they not keep each and every exact article I viewed and for how long, but a tally of sites is fine(for example, if it tallies how many tech and world news articles I've read vs. sports). Most importantly, my data cannot be sold, and I'd like to know as specifically as possible in their privacy policy what they do collect, and preferably for how long.
My problem is, I have found absolutely no way to express to Yahoo management that I desire this feature. Unlike most web sites, I simply cannot find a feedback feature for the web site in general or for My Yahoo!. If anyone could point this out to me, I'd be very happy to send off a feature-request e-mail.
On a related note, I'm off to try the Wall Street Journal Online Edition for 14 days. I've been a print subscriber for 3 years now, but I just let it cancel because it's expensive for non-students and generates a lot of paper. Instead, I'm going to try out the online version which includes all of the print articles plus other features for half the cost. They don't have to print and ship, I don't have to waste the paper and pay as much. This is why I love online content.
Good idea, I didn't really consider it (seemed too cold to use to keep things just above freezing). However, dry ice is easier to obtain for most people.
I have to admit, this hack to cool a bunch of beers is truly amusing. However, the best part about the article was the author's witty humor:
"If I ever do get a car it will be something to tinker with and be small, old and British. Just like my mum. "
"A closer inspection of the can shows how it quite clearly states 'SERVE EXTRA COLD'. It is interesting to note that here is one of few times a bloke will actually read the instructions for anything. Ever. "
and so on.
Although a jet engine is a fast and furious way to cool beer, I present a few practical and impractical alternatives to accomplish the same task.
1.) Duh. Buy a mini-refridgerator/freezer. Set it to the coldest setting possible. If no power is available in a given shed (though this was his garage), run a nice long extension cord from the house. This should get below 5 degrees Celcius. This solution is costly, slow, and gets no points for creativity. Moving along...
2. Dry ice. Dry ice is much colder than freezing temperature, but properly insulated it could serve to create a long-lasting ice box from which to cool the beer. Care must be taken not to bring the beer to freezing point, as that would obviously ruin it and damage the cans. Obtaining more dry ice is annoying, but so is obtaining more propane.
3.) My memory of chemical reactions fails me, but I do recall a variety of endothermic (takes in heat from surroundings) reactions that could be employed to draw away heat from the cans of beer. However, most reactions I recall would require vast quantities in order to cool to the desired temperature. Nonetheless, put in a well-insulated device, with some sort of quantitative control over chemical reaction, this could work. What would be even cooler (no pun intended) is to have an automatic temperature monitor that would mix more chemicals when the temperature got above a certain point. Yes, essentially a thermostat for an endothermic reaction.
Any other ideas?
"TRS-80 Laptops Still Plugging Along"
Wait...I thought the point of laptops is that they were unplugged. Nevermind.
You are assuming that the 13-18 age group has only been playing computer games for a few years. This may apply to most people, but it doesn't apply to me.
I started using a computer at age 3. I am now 17. I remember quite distinctly playing all of the Zorks (though I only really tried to play the first), text based action games like Castle, Trinity, Moonmist, etc. on my vast array of 5 1/4" floppies (it helped that my two older brothers liked computers, so I just sorta picked up their stuff and played with it).
In the early 90s I got myself into BBSes. These games, to me, were more fun to play than the single person text adventures. My favorite games were TradeWars and The Pit. You compete against fellow people and build up your character with additional equipment, money, score, etc. I have always loved this genre of gaming - the idea of a multiplayer environment where one can combine strategy, trade, time, and brainless searching/killing to create an awesome character to play.
Not surprisingly, I got into MUDs for a few years. At the same time I played Civ II and Star Craft more than I'd really like to admit. I would play a FPS here or there for a very short time, but they got boring very quickly. On the other hand, Civ II and Star Craft have absolutely unmatched replay power. I also played Zork: Grand Inquisitor, but never really got into it.
I suppose that's one thing I don't really like about the Zork series - you finish the game, and it's infinitely easier to beat a second time, because you've done all of the puzzles (except in games like Monkey Island which have difficulty settings - great idea!).
Yes, Zork and it's derivatives are fun, but I'd take a strategy/building game over it any day for sheer replayability.
Excellent, thank you. It would seem like Kdevelop and KDE Studio are competing quite effectively to create two awesome products.
I must admit that I've been following the development of Kdevelop for some time, and it would seem that both projects share each other's code to some extent. Kdevelop, for example, is now looking to add the code completion code from KDE Studio. I would imagine that KDE Studio has benefited to some extent from Kdevelop code as well.
I'm going to check out the features of KDE Studio a little more closely, and if they are significantly better than that of Kdevelop, I will definately consider purchasing your product.
Has anyone used both and wants to give a little recommendation?
I'm hoping someone familiar with TheKompany and KDE Studio can answer a few questions for me.
From my understanding, KDE Studio used to be fully open source, but they stopped releasing that version with 2.0.
Now they have KDE Studio Gold, a commercial version at what seem to be reasonable prices. I have absolutely no problem with commericial software and commercial open source software. My question is, is KDE Studio Gold still open source? (not as in free FTP download but source included with purchase). From my understanding TheKompany has every right to take their old Open Source code, and since they own the copyright for everything, release it as a commercial product with no code available.
Can someone please tell me what it is they did?
Also, it would seem their web site needs a little work... the KDE Studio page talks about pre-ordering the software in February 2001.
I can see it now..
"We don't know who struck first. But we do know that it was us who scorched the skies."
I'll only be freaked out when they actually build an AI computer and it happens to be solar powered.
True, in Perl you don't have to declare variables. But good Perl programming is done with "use strict". I'm not an expert Perl programmer, so correct me if I'm wrong, but "use strict" requires programmers to be a little more careful to prevent errors. Variables must be declared in scope (global or local with my), along with other restrictions. Granted, you don't have to declare a datatype (other than indicate it's a scalar, array, or hash).
The things that seem to make Perl a great scripting language is that the syntax is moderately human readable (though it does have many symbols that can be confusing to newcomers). Also, Perl has great modules for CGI and text parsing, so that programmers don't have to reinvent the wheel. This makes many common CGI tasks a snap in Perl, while it may be more difficult in C (or a C scripting language).
Like these Cerfcubes are running the website. Maybe it'll be over the /. effect in a few hours.
We are simply a little ISP, with an old Cisco 1603 router, out of standard warranty (we paid for no additional tech support). Just last week we called to get some questions answered, and I had an excellent conversation with a friendly Cisco technician that answered every question - even ones unrelated to my original case. The best part? It was for free, a "courtesy call" since we've never needed any kind of tech support before.
I've actually had a string of really good tech support stories recently - some companies get it right, and they in turn have a very loyal customer. And a shareholder - I own stock in Cisco (I bought right above their recent 52 week low =).
Chances are, customers of Cisco will have as good of tech support experiences as many of us attest.