Yeah, I know about it. I used it a bit. In fact, I use AfterStep myself, so LiteStep has the kind of look I like.
However, LiteStep isn't enough of a reason to stick with Windows. There are far more good reasons for me to stick with Linux, and LiteStep and Counter-Strike are about the only thing that can keep me in Windows for any period of time.
When you have 1 option, you are forced into that one choice.
If you have 10 options, you can choose any of them at will. You are not forced to do anything. In fact, if one of those options is that 1 that you were previously forced into, you still would have the ability to choose to stay with it. Either way, you have the choice.
It seems that the main reason that the article states for Unix not being an OS is that they believe that the "User Experience" is part of the OS. Personally, I disagree.
An OS is what lies closest to the hardware, and allows the programs themselves to deal with the "User Experience". However, this article being written by a Mac person (and I not saying this is bad), they assume that the interface and such must be part of the OS. I don't think it needs to be, and in fact, I don't think it SHOULD be. But that is just me.
Anyways: just because Unix doesn't assume everybody should be forced into the same "User Experience" doesn't make it somehow less of an OS.
But it still doesn't prove whether a persons CD buying goes up or down due to Napster. If, for example, a person bought 30% more CDs than the average pre-Napster, and 25% more than the average while using Napster, that is still a decrease.
The studies are shit, basically. They don't prove a damn thing.
Those studies you refer to prove nothing. They simply state the obvious: many people who use Napster are music buffs, and are inclined to buy more CDs than non-music buffs.
The studies did NOTHING to prove a causation, ie: Napster usage CAUSED the people to buy more CDs. It just proved a correlation, ie: people who use Napster buy more CDs than those who don't.
Until a study is done proving that Napster is the CAUSE of this increase in CD sales, your argument there means jack shit. Perhaps you should read your own.sig again.
Re:Mythology and the computer world...
on
Selfish Society
·
· Score: 3
I will sort of paraphrase the person who started this thread:
Most IT people are willing to help new people in the IT world out. I personally help people all of the time. I'm the secretary of the local Linux Association, and I am even willing to go over peoples houses and help them work out problems. I am even considering looking around and finding a school system that is in need of computer help and seeing if I can teach night classes (for free, mind you) to the students. I know this is something that I would have personally DIED for while in High School (the ability to actually learn something about the subject). I had to self teach myself, but I'd love to have the chance to help out others into the field.
That said, most IT people are NOT willing to handhold people who feel they are somehow 'entitled' to technology, but have no willingness to learn anything about it. I'm talking about the people who have NO ability to retain knowledge. It isn't because they CAN'T. It is because they WON'T. They ask a question, you tell them, and then 20 minutes later they ask the same thing.
THESE are the people who bitch about the 'technocratic elite'. They can't understand why they can't get into IT, and why we get angry with them. They assume we must all be spoiled rich brats who can't take the time to help them, when in fact the opposite is true. They are spoiled brats who can't do anything for themselves.
Self reliance is something that is highly regarded in IT. It goes hand in hand with initiative and motivation. Also extremely important is the ability to know when you should work something out yourself, and when you should ask another person for help.
These people have none of these skills.
Once again, I'm all for helping out the underpriveledged. But let's look at the people bitching about this. They sure as hell aren't underpriveledged. They are just too lazy and lacking in motivation to get off their asses and do something.
Re:You are the selfish person the article refers t
on
Selfish Society
·
· Score: 5
I don't know where this myth that all technologically minded people are rich came from. But I'm going to tell you that it is complete and utter bullshit.
I don't really know anybody in technology who started off rich. Why? Because the people who started off ultra rich and were handed everything throughout life do not have the motivation necessary to get anywhere in this industry.
The one thing you need to be able to make it in technology is a serious work ethic. If you have this, you will succeed. If you do not, you will fail.
The Facts:
Most of the people I know and work with in IT came from lower- to middle-class families. In fact, a large percentage came from damn near poverty. They had no money to buy computers, and used public facilities until they could scrounge enough parts dumpster diving to put together something workable. If they were lucky, they were able to find a school system giving away older systems that they could screw around with. Up until college, they were completely self taught.
The people who are making it in IT are working their asses off to do so. They are learning new things constantly. And they accept the fact that if they don't know something, they don't claim they do.
This is why so many people fail at IT, and bitch and moan about the 'technocratic elite'. As the original poster pointed out, they can't seem to fathom an industry that you cannot bullshit your way through. If all you have is some certifications you bought and no experience, and can't do jack shit, the people you work with are going to know this VERY VERY SOON. And guess what? They will (rightfully) feel that you don't belong here. Because you don't.
Not only is IT a meritocracy, it is full of people who don't care about padding criticism to make it less harsh. This is the way it works. If I think somebody doesn't know what they're doing, I tell them so, and if they know anything about the industry, THEY DON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY. The people who fail are those who take it far too personally. I know that if I fuck something up, I am going to be told that it was my fault. You need to realize that the same holds true for everybody.
It comes down to what the original poster said: you don't know what you are doing, you can't make it in IT. The only way to know what you're doing is to WORK FOR IT. For most, this is a new concept, and one they don't want to accept. Guess what? Too bad. I don't care. Just shit, or get off the pot.
Also, this isn't that relevant in the business world. Most if not all businesses that are going to have servers that are critical to their business will have a fat enough pipe to handle it.
Besides, how is this worse than downloading all the updates individually? It will take just as much download time, if not more, and you'll have to search for them instead of have them all in one place.
It takes about 20 minutes to update a fresh install of Debian stable to the most current kernel and all other security patches. As I've said before, simply:
After that, go download the latest kernel source[which you can also do through apt], compile, and be happy.
This guy is supposed to be reviewing the security of a distribution, not the security of the kernel. The kernel can be updated in about $(TIME_IT_TAKES_TO_DOWNLOAD) + 10 minutes. All userland security holes are addressed in updates to the stable tree. Also, I'm not sure [I personally forget] if Debian is in the habit of tossing new kernels into the stable tree, but I'm sure that it would happen were there a major breach.
Any holes that are found are put into stable. Basically, you can install from the original CD of the current stable, without ANY security updates, and then right after installation do:
"I have not fully covered Slackware and Debian, with their ridiculously slow release schedules. "
So... since when does release schedule have ANYTHING to do with security? Sure, Debian and Slackware don't release new versions often. This doesn't mean they don't release security fixes.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Debian is the easiest distribution to keep up-to-date, security wise. I often recieve updated packages via apt before the security announcement even hits Bugtraq. And since it takes all of 2 minutes to get the updates and apply them, it is easy for me to keep it up-to-date. Compare this, for example, with having to constantly search down the news/new packages/etc , which you have to do with other distros.
Debian likes to make sure the release is rock solid before releasing it. I'll be the first to admit that sometimes it is a bit slow. But this does not make the distribution less secure. In reality, it helps make it more secure.
Anyways, that comment alone was enough to make me skeptical of the actual knowledge of the author. It is a really ignorant, offhand remark to make, and has no relevance to security. But that is just me.
I think that when people refer to it as CGI in that context, they mean 'Computer Generated Images'. So really, it isn't redundant, nor incorrect. Just a different way to put it.
I called you a troll because you're claiming your misconceptions are fact.
When a person listens to the radio, the music is occasionally broken up by... COMMERCIALS! And THAT is how you are "paying" to listen to it. The radio station pays to be able to broadcast it, and you pay by listening to the commercials that they have been paid to broadcast. If they didn't have commercials, they sure as hell wouldn't be broadcasting music, as they couldn't afford to pay for the rights to do so.
Just because you don't pay money directly to listen to broadcasts of music doesn't mean it isn't being paid for in some way. And once again, it doesn't matter whether I feel what the RIAA does is wrong. That doesn't make stealing right.
The reason that radio stations, VH1, MTV, etc can play songs for us to listen that "we don't own" is that the stations pay royalties to the record companies. These royalties are paid for the right to broadcast the songs. When you download a song you don't own from the net, nobody has paid royalties. You are getting the music, and the record companies aren't getting paid for what is theirs.
Of course, I'm assuming you know this, and are just trying to start an argument for no reason.
And I personally find the RIAA to be scum. However, that doesn't make it right to rip them off. If I decide I don't like the business practices of BMW, that doesn't make it right to go start stealing cars from their dealers. The same is true for this. Two wrongs don't make a right.
How does the fact that some administrators are lazy and unfit for their jobs make me wrong?
If you are a competent admin, Debian can be a great tool. It simplifies the process of keeping your system up to date with the latest security patches.
More often than not, the weak link in the chain is the administrator. Human error and laziness is more likely to get your system broken into than anything else. However, if you are diligent about it, you greatly reduce the risk of breakins. Debian helps out a lot with this, and makes it easier.
People who deploy systems and then forget about them are the worst type of administrator, for when you assume that you are infallible, you set yourself up to be shown how wrong you really are.
Debian rarely gets broken into, for one reason: the ease at which you can keep packages updated. If a security exploit is found, you'll generally see an updated package appear within a day or less. In fact, I'm on bugtraq, and I often get the updated package a few hours before the announcement is even out.
How do you get this package, you ask? Well, once or twice a day, run two simple commands. It looks a bit like this:
Anyways, its quick, easy, and works. If you keep up to date [which is REALLY easy], your chance of getting broken into is pretty damn low. Sure, it will never been 100% secure, but its closer than most other distros.
I used to use Slackware. After a few years of it, I got tired of not having package management, so I switched to Red Hat. After a while, I got tired of searching down packages through rpmfind, and switched to Debian. I haven't looked back since:)
My University's CS program is total UNIX, with Linux also starting to gain acceptance. We've even begun putting together a Linux lab.
MS products are used in exactly TWO CS classes [unless I'm mistaken]:
Machine Organization [Assembly]: MASM + DOS Human Computer Interaction: VB is used later on [for prototyping interfaces]
HCI was a horrible class anyways, due to the teacher, and not due to the subject matter. They used DOS for asm mainly for MASM and DOS interrupts and shit like that. Wasn't that bad, excepting working on a lab computer with Win9x and getting memory errors for doing things Win9x didn't like at all in a DOS prompt:)
Every other class in the CS department is UNIX. And dammit, I love it:)
First, as I said, I'm not saying Be might not have found a new way to do things that has resulted in a vast improvement. If they have, great for them. But right now, the only "proof" is a set of benchmarks on a Be related site.
Second, how many people do you think there are on Slashdot who impersonate others? The number is pretty high. You'll notice all the time people with names like 'Bruce Perens.' or 'John Carmack.' and such. Just because his name appears on the Be Team list doesn't necessarily mean he is who he purports to be. And I'm not saying it is impossible. It is entirely possible he is. If you claim he is, fine, I'll believe you. I'm just pointing out that blindly accepting the word of anyone on Slashdot is a bad idea. In addition to this, the moderating down of one post, which has information that cannot be verified, based on the information in another post, which also cannot be verified, is a Bad Thing (tm).
Also, I find it just a childish whenever anybody else on slashdot talks about "microsloth" or "winblowz" or any other derogatory term. It is childish name-calling. If you have a problem with MS [as many do], back it up with reasons and facts. Don't be angry at MS because it is 'hip' or 'cool' to be so. This is what Mr. Ewhac is doing. He isn't giving reasons, he is just being derogatory so that he sounds 'cool'.
The problem I see with what has gone down in this thread is that people are blindly taking one side or another. Realize that I'm NOT saying that either person is right. I'm just saying that , seeing as neither set of information is verifiable, it seems silly to be moderating based on either of them. Whether the first should've been moderated up is questionable, but at the same time, whether it should've been moderated down at the whim of someone else who is also unverifiable is just as bad.
And as for your audio compression analogy: no, people would NOT clap you on the back. People like LOSSLESS compression methods. Lossy methods suck. If you look around, for example, at different mp3 encoders, you'll find that some drop noise that is supposedly out of the range of human hearing to help compression. You'll also notice that most people are AGAINST this, as you can often tell the difference. The song just doesn't sound right when you do this.
Anyways, don't mistake me here. I like Be. I think it has a lot of potential. If it had more apps and games, I'd probably use it along with Linux. I messed around with R4 and R4.5 some, and found it pretty nice, although a few things were a bit weird, but what OS is perfect? I'm not here trying to bash Be.
a. We don't know that he works at Be. He claims to. Do we have any proof? No.
b. Regardless, he is acting childish and unprofessional
And furthur:
c. The benchmarks as suspect. Either the original benchmarks were tampered with, or Be is doing SOMETHING [such as dropping triangles] to speed it up, OR Be has discovered a new way around some bottleneck that is slowing down all other OGL implementations.
I find it hard to believe that ANY OS is going to be 1.75 times faster than another in OGL, especially when the losing OS was Windows. I don't like Windows, but the fact of the matter is, the OpenGL implementations for Windows are generally fast, as they've had a lot of development money put into them.
Anyways, I'm just pointing out that the original post shouldn't be moderated down just because some guy on slashdot claims he works for Be and that he has the answers. If Be wants to put up an official statement on the matter, they can put it up on their website. Until then, I have no way of identifying this guy as a true Be employee.
Do I have a way of identifying the original poster as somebody who has had access to the beta OGL from Be? Nope. But his explanation sounds like it might be plausible, and if nothing else, is no less plausible than the guy claiming to work for Be.
I have to agree with this. Looking at the results of the test, I'm a bit skeptical. I'm not saying it is impossible that Be managed to pull it off. However, some of the differences are rather large. Most of the work is done by the video card, and no OS is going to magically force your video card to work 1.75 times faster.
Add that to the fact that the only person refuting the original poster is (possibly) a Be employee who (quite obviously) has some problems with Microsoft, as well as acts rather unprofessional, and I'd say that you have to be a little suspicious. Do we even have confirmation that he works at Be? I didn't think so.
But hey, thats how the moderation system fucks up I guess.
The noise of computers has never bothered me. Right now, the room I sleep in has a Dual PII-450 that has a total of 11 fans in it, a Dual PPro-200 that has 5, and a PII-450 with 6. Unless I consciously think about it, I don't hear the sound.
I guess I just sorta filter it out without even thinking about it. I'm not sure how common this is though. I've been doing it all my life, sometimes in bad ways:) I remember when I was young, my mother was convinced I had 'selective hearing', where I would filter out things I didn't want to hear without even realizing it. So if she was upstairs and called down to me 'you have a phone call' , I'd hear it, but if she called down 'come up and clean your room', I would honestly not recall ever hearing it.
Weird I guess. Either way, computer noise doesn't bother me, because I just don't hear it unless I try to.
So if I report bugs, or give suggestions, I'm just another person who is "unwilling to do the work"? Corel's ideas about UI bugs might not match up with the KDE team's, but they still should be considered. It's called 'feedback', and it is what any software project needs in order to grow.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I know about it. I used it a bit. In fact, I use AfterStep myself, so LiteStep has the kind of look I like.
However, LiteStep isn't enough of a reason to stick with Windows. There are far more good reasons for me to stick with Linux, and LiteStep and Counter-Strike are about the only thing that can keep me in Windows for any period of time.
When you have 1 option, you are forced into that one choice.
If you have 10 options, you can choose any of them at will. You are not forced to do anything. In fact, if one of those options is that 1 that you were previously forced into, you still would have the ability to choose to stay with it. Either way, you have the choice.
It seems that the main reason that the article states for Unix not being an OS is that they believe that the "User Experience" is part of the OS. Personally, I disagree.
An OS is what lies closest to the hardware, and allows the programs themselves to deal with the "User Experience". However, this article being written by a Mac person (and I not saying this is bad), they assume that the interface and such must be part of the OS. I don't think it needs to be, and in fact, I don't think it SHOULD be. But that is just me.
Anyways: just because Unix doesn't assume everybody should be forced into the same "User Experience" doesn't make it somehow less of an OS.
But that is just my opinion.
But it still doesn't prove whether a persons CD buying goes up or down due to Napster. If, for example, a person bought 30% more CDs than the average pre-Napster, and 25% more than the average while using Napster, that is still a decrease.
The studies are shit, basically. They don't prove a damn thing.
Those studies you refer to prove nothing. They simply state the obvious: many people who use Napster are music buffs, and are inclined to buy more CDs than non-music buffs.
.sig again.
The studies did NOTHING to prove a causation, ie: Napster usage CAUSED the people to buy more CDs. It just proved a correlation, ie: people who use Napster buy more CDs than those who don't.
Until a study is done proving that Napster is the CAUSE of this increase in CD sales, your argument there means jack shit. Perhaps you should read your own
I will sort of paraphrase the person who started this thread:
Most IT people are willing to help new people in the IT world out. I personally help people all of the time. I'm the secretary of the local Linux Association, and I am even willing to go over peoples houses and help them work out problems. I am even considering looking around and finding a school system that is in need of computer help and seeing if I can teach night classes (for free, mind you) to the students. I know this is something that I would have personally DIED for while in High School (the ability to actually learn something about the subject). I had to self teach myself, but I'd love to have the chance to help out others into the field.
That said, most IT people are NOT willing to handhold people who feel they are somehow 'entitled' to technology, but have no willingness to learn anything about it. I'm talking about the people who have NO ability to retain knowledge. It isn't because they CAN'T. It is because they WON'T. They ask a question, you tell them, and then 20 minutes later they ask the same thing.
THESE are the people who bitch about the 'technocratic elite'. They can't understand why they can't get into IT, and why we get angry with them. They assume we must all be spoiled rich brats who can't take the time to help them, when in fact the opposite is true. They are spoiled brats who can't do anything for themselves.
Self reliance is something that is highly regarded in IT. It goes hand in hand with initiative and motivation. Also extremely important is the ability to know when you should work something out yourself, and when you should ask another person for help.
These people have none of these skills.
Once again, I'm all for helping out the underpriveledged. But let's look at the people bitching about this. They sure as hell aren't underpriveledged. They are just too lazy and lacking in motivation to get off their asses and do something.
I don't know where this myth that all technologically minded people are rich came from. But I'm going to tell you that it is complete and utter bullshit.
I don't really know anybody in technology who started off rich. Why? Because the people who started off ultra rich and were handed everything throughout life do not have the motivation necessary to get anywhere in this industry.
The one thing you need to be able to make it in technology is a serious work ethic. If you have this, you will succeed. If you do not, you will fail.
The Facts:
Most of the people I know and work with in IT came from lower- to middle-class families. In fact, a large percentage came from damn near poverty. They had no money to buy computers, and used public facilities until they could scrounge enough parts dumpster diving to put together something workable. If they were lucky, they were able to find a school system giving away older systems that they could screw around with. Up until college, they were completely self taught.
The people who are making it in IT are working their asses off to do so. They are learning new things constantly. And they accept the fact that if they don't know something, they don't claim they do.
This is why so many people fail at IT, and bitch and moan about the 'technocratic elite'. As the original poster pointed out, they can't seem to fathom an industry that you cannot bullshit your way through. If all you have is some certifications you bought and no experience, and can't do jack shit, the people you work with are going to know this VERY VERY SOON. And guess what? They will (rightfully) feel that you don't belong here. Because you don't.
Not only is IT a meritocracy, it is full of people who don't care about padding criticism to make it less harsh. This is the way it works. If I think somebody doesn't know what they're doing, I tell them so, and if they know anything about the industry, THEY DON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY. The people who fail are those who take it far too personally. I know that if I fuck something up, I am going to be told that it was my fault. You need to realize that the same holds true for everybody.
It comes down to what the original poster said: you don't know what you are doing, you can't make it in IT. The only way to know what you're doing is to WORK FOR IT. For most, this is a new concept, and one they don't want to accept. Guess what? Too bad. I don't care. Just shit, or get off the pot.
You'll notice that anime now has its own category. If you don't want it, filter it out. Thats what the filters are there for.
Brand me a pig then I guess. Fat pipes are fun :)
Also, this isn't that relevant in the business world. Most if not all businesses that are going to have servers that are critical to their business will have a fat enough pipe to handle it.
Besides, how is this worse than downloading all the updates individually? It will take just as much download time, if not more, and you'll have to search for them instead of have them all in one place.
It takes about 20 minutes to update a fresh install of Debian stable to the most current kernel and all other security patches. As I've said before, simply:
[root@host] > apt-get update
[root@host] > apt-get upgrade
After that, go download the latest kernel source[which you can also do through apt], compile, and be happy.
This guy is supposed to be reviewing the security of a distribution, not the security of the kernel. The kernel can be updated in about $(TIME_IT_TAKES_TO_DOWNLOAD) + 10 minutes. All userland security holes are addressed in updates to the stable tree. Also, I'm not sure [I personally forget] if Debian is in the habit of tossing new kernels into the stable tree, but I'm sure that it would happen were there a major breach.
Hmm. That should read "any fixes for holes that are found...". We don't want to be putting holes into stable :)
Any holes that are found are put into stable. Basically, you can install from the original CD of the current stable, without ANY security updates, and then right after installation do:
[root@host] > apt-get update
[root@host] > apt-get upgrade
And at that point, you're done. It will fix all known security problems.
Ok, a quote from the article:
"I have not fully covered Slackware and Debian, with their ridiculously slow release schedules. "
So... since when does release schedule have ANYTHING to do with security? Sure, Debian and Slackware don't release new versions often. This doesn't mean they don't release security fixes.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Debian is the easiest distribution to keep up-to-date, security wise. I often recieve updated packages via apt before the security announcement even hits Bugtraq. And since it takes all of 2 minutes to get the updates and apply them, it is easy for me to keep it up-to-date. Compare this, for example, with having to constantly search down the news/new packages/etc , which you have to do with other distros.
Debian likes to make sure the release is rock solid before releasing it. I'll be the first to admit that sometimes it is a bit slow. But this does not make the distribution less secure. In reality, it helps make it more secure.
Anyways, that comment alone was enough to make me skeptical of the actual knowledge of the author. It is a really ignorant, offhand remark to make, and has no relevance to security. But that is just me.
I think that when people refer to it as CGI in that context, they mean 'Computer Generated Images'. So really, it isn't redundant, nor incorrect. Just a different way to put it.
I called you a troll because you're claiming your misconceptions are fact.
When a person listens to the radio, the music is occasionally broken up by... COMMERCIALS! And THAT is how you are "paying" to listen to it. The radio station pays to be able to broadcast it, and you pay by listening to the commercials that they have been paid to broadcast. If they didn't have commercials, they sure as hell wouldn't be broadcasting music, as they couldn't afford to pay for the rights to do so.
Just because you don't pay money directly to listen to broadcasts of music doesn't mean it isn't being paid for in some way. And once again, it doesn't matter whether I feel what the RIAA does is wrong. That doesn't make stealing right.
OK, I'm biting at this troll, though I shouldn't.
The reason that radio stations, VH1, MTV, etc can play songs for us to listen that "we don't own" is that the stations pay royalties to the record companies. These royalties are paid for the right to broadcast the songs. When you download a song you don't own from the net, nobody has paid royalties. You are getting the music, and the record companies aren't getting paid for what is theirs.
Of course, I'm assuming you know this, and are just trying to start an argument for no reason.
And I personally find the RIAA to be scum. However, that doesn't make it right to rip them off. If I decide I don't like the business practices of BMW, that doesn't make it right to go start stealing cars from their dealers. The same is true for this. Two wrongs don't make a right.
How does the fact that some administrators are lazy and unfit for their jobs make me wrong?
If you are a competent admin, Debian can be a great tool. It simplifies the process of keeping your system up to date with the latest security patches.
More often than not, the weak link in the chain is the administrator. Human error and laziness is more likely to get your system broken into than anything else. However, if you are diligent about it, you greatly reduce the risk of breakins. Debian helps out a lot with this, and makes it easier.
People who deploy systems and then forget about them are the worst type of administrator, for when you assume that you are infallible, you set yourself up to be shown how wrong you really are.
Try Debian.
:)
Debian rarely gets broken into, for one reason: the ease at which you can keep packages updated. If a security exploit is found, you'll generally see an updated package appear within a day or less. In fact, I'm on bugtraq, and I often get the updated package a few hours before the announcement is even out.
How do you get this package, you ask? Well, once or twice a day, run two simple commands. It looks a bit like this:
[root@host] > apt-get update
[root@host] > apt-get upgrade
Anyways, its quick, easy, and works. If you keep up to date [which is REALLY easy], your chance of getting broken into is pretty damn low. Sure, it will never been 100% secure, but its closer than most other distros.
I used to use Slackware. After a few years of it, I got tired of not having package management, so I switched to Red Hat. After a while, I got tired of searching down packages through rpmfind, and switched to Debian. I haven't looked back since
You picked the wrong school, I guess.
:)
:)
My University's CS program is total UNIX, with Linux also starting to gain acceptance. We've even begun putting together a Linux lab.
MS products are used in exactly TWO CS classes [unless I'm mistaken]:
Machine Organization [Assembly]: MASM + DOS
Human Computer Interaction: VB is used later on [for prototyping interfaces]
HCI was a horrible class anyways, due to the teacher, and not due to the subject matter. They used DOS for asm mainly for MASM and DOS interrupts and shit like that. Wasn't that bad, excepting working on a lab computer with Win9x and getting memory errors for doing things Win9x didn't like at all in a DOS prompt
Every other class in the CS department is UNIX. And dammit, I love it
Did I once mention Linux in my posts? I didn't think so.
Nice try, though.
A few things:
First, as I said, I'm not saying Be might not have found a new way to do things that has resulted in a vast improvement. If they have, great for them. But right now, the only "proof" is a set of benchmarks on a Be related site.
Second, how many people do you think there are on Slashdot who impersonate others? The number is pretty high. You'll notice all the time people with names like 'Bruce Perens.' or 'John Carmack.' and such. Just because his name appears on the Be Team list doesn't necessarily mean he is who he purports to be. And I'm not saying it is impossible. It is entirely possible he is. If you claim he is, fine, I'll believe you. I'm just pointing out that blindly accepting the word of anyone on Slashdot is a bad idea. In addition to this, the moderating down of one post, which has information that cannot be verified, based on the information in another post, which also cannot be verified, is a Bad Thing (tm).
Also, I find it just a childish whenever anybody else on slashdot talks about "microsloth" or "winblowz" or any other derogatory term. It is childish name-calling. If you have a problem with MS [as many do], back it up with reasons and facts. Don't be angry at MS because it is 'hip' or 'cool' to be so. This is what Mr. Ewhac is doing. He isn't giving reasons, he is just being derogatory so that he sounds 'cool'.
The problem I see with what has gone down in this thread is that people are blindly taking one side or another. Realize that I'm NOT saying that either person is right. I'm just saying that , seeing as neither set of information is verifiable, it seems silly to be moderating based on either of them. Whether the first should've been moderated up is questionable, but at the same time, whether it should've been moderated down at the whim of someone else who is also unverifiable is just as bad.
And as for your audio compression analogy: no, people would NOT clap you on the back. People like LOSSLESS compression methods. Lossy methods suck. If you look around, for example, at different mp3 encoders, you'll find that some drop noise that is supposedly out of the range of human hearing to help compression. You'll also notice that most people are AGAINST this, as you can often tell the difference. The song just doesn't sound right when you do this.
Anyways, don't mistake me here. I like Be. I think it has a lot of potential. If it had more apps and games, I'd probably use it along with Linux. I messed around with R4 and R4.5 some, and found it pretty nice, although a few things were a bit weird, but what OS is perfect? I'm not here trying to bash Be.
Just more thoughts.
Read my original comment again.
As I said:
a. We don't know that he works at Be. He claims to. Do we have any proof? No.
b. Regardless, he is acting childish and unprofessional
And furthur:
c. The benchmarks as suspect. Either the original benchmarks were tampered with, or Be is doing SOMETHING [such as dropping triangles] to speed it up, OR Be has discovered a new way around some bottleneck that is slowing down all other OGL implementations.
I find it hard to believe that ANY OS is going to be 1.75 times faster than another in OGL, especially when the losing OS was Windows. I don't like Windows, but the fact of the matter is, the OpenGL implementations for Windows are generally fast, as they've had a lot of development money put into them.
Anyways, I'm just pointing out that the original post shouldn't be moderated down just because some guy on slashdot claims he works for Be and that he has the answers. If Be wants to put up an official statement on the matter, they can put it up on their website. Until then, I have no way of identifying this guy as a true Be employee.
Do I have a way of identifying the original poster as somebody who has had access to the beta OGL from Be? Nope. But his explanation sounds like it might be plausible, and if nothing else, is no less plausible than the guy claiming to work for Be.
I have to agree with this. Looking at the results of the test, I'm a bit skeptical. I'm not saying it is impossible that Be managed to pull it off. However, some of the differences are rather large. Most of the work is done by the video card, and no OS is going to magically force your video card to work 1.75 times faster.
Add that to the fact that the only person refuting the original poster is (possibly) a Be employee who (quite obviously) has some problems with Microsoft, as well as acts rather unprofessional, and I'd say that you have to be a little suspicious. Do we even have confirmation that he works at Be? I didn't think so.
But hey, thats how the moderation system fucks up I guess.
The noise of computers has never bothered me. Right now, the room I sleep in has a Dual PII-450 that has a total of 11 fans in it, a Dual PPro-200 that has 5, and a PII-450 with 6. Unless I consciously think about it, I don't hear the sound.
:) I remember when I was young, my mother was convinced I had 'selective hearing', where I would filter out things I didn't want to hear without even realizing it. So if she was upstairs and called down to me 'you have a phone call' , I'd hear it, but if she called down 'come up and clean your room', I would honestly not recall ever hearing it.
I guess I just sorta filter it out without even thinking about it. I'm not sure how common this is though. I've been doing it all my life, sometimes in bad ways
Weird I guess. Either way, computer noise doesn't bother me, because I just don't hear it unless I try to.
So if I report bugs, or give suggestions, I'm just another person who is "unwilling to do the work"? Corel's ideas about UI bugs might not match up with the KDE team's, but they still should be considered. It's called 'feedback', and it is what any software project needs in order to grow.