I don't know where it comes from, but in my office our Red Hat 6.2 Application Server (serving Oracle applications) is humming right along at 46 users. We had a windows box for a little while, but it crashed too much, go figure.
The problem with most computers in the classroom programs is that most of them are half baked attempts. The education system in use today is far to outdated to get the most out of new technologies. Not to mention the severely hampered budgets at most schools.
When I was in 6th grade, our school got a whole bunch of Apple IIe's donated. Fortunately, for us students, our math teacher already had one, and was fairly knowledgable of BASIC programming before they even came in. In a matter of days after their arrival he had a mini BASIC programming course all put together. He taught it as part of his regular math course where he taught us how to use simple math to make little interactive games. He also got "Oregon Trail" and "Lemonade Stand", showed our Social Studies teacher who to run the computer and we set out to learn our first lessons about economics, critical thinking, and budgeting. That was back in the eighties. The computers in the classroom programs today haven't come very far.
Most of the programs that I've seen have been silly little exercises on looking up information on the web or watching a string of multimedia clips (sponsored by XYZ Corp. complete with ads).
There is so much that can be done with a computer today besides the basics of programming, networking, or even using a computer, which many schools still do not teach. A thin client on every desk could make for an excellent learning environment, provided the content is there. Imagine a virtual textbook with print, video, and audio content. It could certainly make History class a lot more interesting. There is a lot of potential for computers in the classroom, we simply need to update the way we educate.
Apparently, no one in Redmond has any clue how the judicial system works. Even after the trial started they were lobbying/contributing to various members of congress as if the legislature could save them at that point. What did Bill think Congress could do, pass a retroactive repeal of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Maybe if someone in Redmond had actually stayed awake in a Business Law, Ethics, or History class they might have avoided this whole mess in the first place. Oh yeah, Bill dropped out of college. He must not have gotten to those classes yet.
Windows is the only true way. Bill is a swell guy. Steve is a swell guy. Windows is the portal to a higher conciousness. Stop this persecution of my brethren or the DLL gods will be angry.
>Start small and build it into something greater, >not the other way around.
I think that is likely the reason that the show didn't do too well. I don't think that the show being in KC was the problem, just that KC isn't ready to support a show of this magnitude.
Trade shows and conferences aren't things that can simply be put together at the last moment. A good TS/Conf is something you grow. Now I'm no event organizer, but it seems to me that there is a logical series of steps that have to happen to get things going.
- Call it a Conference instead of a Trade Show. This puts more of an emphasis on learning and networking (the social kind)than on marketing.
- Focus on local/regional Linux companies/vendors. Having Red Hat and Informix maybe a real coupe, but if the show is a waste of their time then they're going to be hesitant about coming back.
- Market the hell out of it. Not the expensive glitzy kind, but send out info to all the big Linux portals on the net.
- Drop the price to a more reasonable $20.
- Set reasonable goals for growth. Try to progressively increase the conference content/speakers/vendors each year and the next thing you know you've got a rocking Conference/Trade Show hybrid in the midwest. That ought to get the gospel of Open Source out in the midwest.
Like I said, I'm no event organizer, but it seems pretty logical to me, successful expos don't just happen overnight.
Good luck, I may not live in the midwest, but I certainly like hearing about successful Linux shows anywhere they happen.
Linux is FREE!! It's free because you have FREEdom! It's free because you have the right do with it as you please. You can modify it, install it on as many machines as you like and you can even distribute it so long as you don't limit the buyers from exercising those same liberties. Yeah, Linux is affordable, for those with high speed internet connections its VERY affordable.
You're right most "cheap" companies wouldn't invest money to send their staff to a Linux expo. In fact, most "cheap" companies wouldn't have taken a gamble on Linux in the first place. They're too afraid of things like employee education costs, integration expenses, legacy application porting costs, and the (perceived) lack of "real" support for Linux. They're dead wrong, but that's the way most "cheap" companies think. They think that mainting the status quo is the best method to reducing costs over the long haul. As for the "progressive" companies that are already using linux in some manner, they look forward to sending their staff to any conference that makes them more knowledgable and productive.
Now for the Swami's prediction: "Linux expos, like Linux itself, will steadily gain popularity as more and more people become more disgusted with proprietary software."
Are all of Nike's commercials stupid? No. I thought the Y2k commercial was hilarious. Do I have to pay for overpriced Nike products? No. I don't have to buy them. Do I care if Nike gets sued? Yes! When some moron who has some how managed to avoid "natural selection" all these years sees the judicial system as a means to make a quick buck.
I'm not a big fan of Nike, but I already know I hate this guy even more. First the try and extort Amazon thing, and then this. This guy probably gets christmas cards from his attorney every year thanking him for keeping the law office in business.
Once again, the person doing the suing is in the UK. I'll admit we have some really pathetic laws and a lot of sue happy people, but the kettle is pretty black on the other side of the pond too.
One of the only problems I can see with open source games is in the multiplayer genre. Just imagine the difficulty of getting the various versions of a particular game to "sync-up" for a multiplayer game. Not to mention the increased ability to cheat inherent within this model. The only two solutions to this problem that I can see are:
- Create a level playing field check where each player's game is scanned for "illegal" modifications. The problem with that is that onesomeone will always find away around something like that and that very few people, myself included, like having their system scanned. - The game company releases a mostly closed source game for multiplayer purposes. The problem with that being, who wants to install two games at roughly half a gig each. Then again, I suppose they could share most of the same files, but I still think it isn't the most attractive option.
I honestly believe, that games are better off in a closed/open hybrid state. I think all the development tools should be open source, as well as some of the game code and art, but the developers should keep some of the truly unique things to themselves, atleast for a little while.
Art is important too. The problem with many games is that art (sub: eye-candy) is the basis of the game (Myst). Some games put a premium on their art, and usually pay the consequences. However, there are quite a few that draw from these qualities and make for a much richer experience. There are games out their that achieve a good balance between art and gameplay. Starcraft, European Air War, Rainbow 6, the Quakes, and most of the EASports games, as well as many more examples that I'm leaving out, do an excellent job of mixing good visuals and good gameplay.
BTW my favorite game of all time is the graphically spartan Civ2. I have to admit that sometimes you don't need flashy graphics to make a great game, but they can certainly make it better.
Integral maybe, what other purpose could he possibly serve?
I find it hard to believe that Jar Jar is a character from an earlier movie. I also find the it even more difficult to believe that Jar Jar becomes Boba Fett, that's just plain lunacy. The part about the force is somewhat more believable, but I'm not holding my breath.
Anyway, anyone seen this before. A friend of mine pointed out this site to me before and I went back to see his review on Phantom Menace.
http://www.moviejuice.com/1999/starwars.htm
Here's a clip if the site gets slashdotted.
Every story has a beginning and every universe has its Jerry Lewis. Here it's the virtually unintelligible "Jar Jar Binks." Rasta rabbit, funny bunny, one part Chris Tucker and two parts Scooby Doo. Picture Chewbacca with A.D.D. and a gnawing propensity for pig latin. Silly Binks, Trix are for kids! "Ex-squeeze Me," says Jar Jar Berle, as the Friars Club guffaws uncontrollably. Enter the fifth Teletubby. "Uh-Ohhhhhh!"
Jar Jar Binks? Either some sorry soul at Lucasfilm posed the question: "What would it look like if a migraine headache could walk and talk?" or somebody's serving tainted shitake 'shrooms at the Lucas Ranch commissary. You guys, stop inhaling the hemp mousepads! Don't eat the brown trail mix!
When Jar Jar opened his mouth to speak, my first thought was: "You're kidding. For the whole movie?!" How long can Liam Neeson stand it before he hauls off and slugs this guy? Is this why Bill Gates wanted to limit us all to 640K? "The force is strong with this one," says Liam, "the force of my Jedi fist in his rabbity face, that is. Here's your Scooby Snack!"
The rest of the review is pretty good too. This guy is pretty funny, sometiems.
Anyone heard of him or know what he's done before? I don't recognize the name, not that I'm surprised it would have been so unlike Lucas to pick a "well-known" for such an important character.
Not that I'd think he'd be too keen on the possibility, I think Tim O'Reilly would be a pretty good choice. He's very intelligent, reasonable, and plays well with others.
I wont complain though, things could have been much worse. They could have extended an invitation to Jeff Bezos.
Windows Apps aren't necessarily named more appropriately than their Linux cousins. However, Windows Apps Developers usually have an easier time marketing their products. Quicken isn't the most obvious title for a finance application, but Intuit has put a lot of marketing effort into "branding", which they have largely been able to accomplish.
Unfortunately for the linux community those kinds of resources are few and far between (I wont get into whether or not this is a good thing). To make matters worse, the average linux user has to choose from a seemingly limitless expanse of applications for each and every computing need. While this in my mind isn't a bad thing in and of itself, the fact that many of these applications are often buried in obscurity by their relatively nondescript names makes things much worse.
BTW, While I don't think its the "flashiest" name for it. I think GnuCash is a fitting name for the program.
Let me first say that I agree with you, but I get the impression that the book is more of a rant on the ills of the big bad corporations and their marketing machines.
The root problem is that everybody feels the need to belong to a group. The clothes we wear, the cars we drive, even the operating system we use makes us a a part of a group whether we want to be or not. This isn't a problem until we begin to believe that belonging to the group is more important to us then our own individuality. When kids think they need to kill for a pair of sneakers or when executives think they need to keep their mouths shut about poor labor practices just to maintain or establish their place in a group, thats when we have a problem. I think Ms. Klein is on to a serious problem in society, but from what I gather she's got a scapegoat and nothing more.
This isn't meant to disagree with you in anyway. In fact, I think we are largely in agreement here. Its just easier to reply than to start a whole new thread.
I'm surrounded by logos right now and I don't care. The reason I don't care is because just about everyone of them is sitting on a mighty fine product.
Dell (workstation) one solid machine O'Reilly (books) The best damn computer books money can buy Cambridge Soundworks (speakers) They sound great Nike (sneakers) after 5 years they're still in one piece. L.L.Bean (jeans) most comfortable pair of jeans I've ever owned Ralph Lauren (shirt) comfortable and I live next to an outlet store Swiss Army (watch) Can't kill it and it keeps the time Radisson (pen) free, writes good, and it was a nice vacation Red Hat (software box) an excellent Linux distro Dilbert (calendar) It makes me laugh
Logos are not the problem, people are. If someone is dumb enough to buy something because of the logo and not the product, then that is their problem. Let's blame the consumers for their own failings and not try and reinvent capitalism in a kinder, gentler image.
The founding fathers liberated 13 colonies from the British Empire. A moved that helped to form a new country built on unproven ideals, that have somehow managed to stand the test of time.
Napster hasn't liberated anyone from the record companies and their greedy retail cronies. There is a BIG fundamental difference between the founding fathers and Napster. The colonists were forced to do what England told them to. You don't have to buy that shiny new CD the day it comes out, its a luxury.
Don't get me wrong, I hate RIAA. And I hate paying $16 for a CD, which is why I don't! This whole gripe about CD's being overpriced is bullshit. There are plenty of record stores that sell the latest releases for reasonable prices ($10-$11). Napster didn't liberate me, Newbury Comics and some of the other smaller stores did.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know where it comes from, but in my office our Red Hat 6.2 Application Server (serving Oracle applications) is humming right along at 46 users. We had a windows box for a little while, but it crashed too much, go figure.
The problem with most computers in the classroom programs is that most of them are half baked attempts. The education system in use today is far to outdated to get the most out of new technologies. Not to mention the severely hampered budgets at most schools.
When I was in 6th grade, our school got a whole bunch of Apple IIe's donated. Fortunately, for us students, our math teacher already had one, and was fairly knowledgable of BASIC programming before they even came in. In a matter of days after their arrival he had a mini BASIC programming course all put together. He taught it as part of his regular math course where he taught us how to use simple math to make little interactive games. He also got "Oregon Trail" and "Lemonade Stand", showed our Social Studies teacher who to run the computer and we set out to learn our first lessons about economics, critical thinking, and budgeting. That was back in the eighties. The computers in the classroom programs today haven't come very far.
Most of the programs that I've seen have been silly little exercises on looking up information on the web or watching a string of multimedia clips (sponsored by XYZ Corp. complete with ads).
There is so much that can be done with a computer today besides the basics of programming, networking, or even using a computer, which many schools still do not teach. A thin client on every desk could make for an excellent learning environment, provided the content is there. Imagine a virtual textbook with print, video, and audio content. It could certainly make History class a lot more interesting. There is a lot of potential for computers in the classroom, we simply need to update the way we educate.
Apparently, no one in Redmond has any clue how the judicial system works. Even after the trial started they were lobbying/contributing to various members of congress as if the legislature could save them at that point. What did Bill think Congress could do, pass a retroactive repeal of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Maybe if someone in Redmond had actually stayed awake in a Business Law, Ethics, or History class they might have avoided this whole mess in the first place. Oh yeah, Bill dropped out of college. He must not have gotten to those classes yet.
Can I quote you on the "Astroturf Activism"? I like it.
Dear Representative Smith,
Windows is the only true way. Bill is a swell guy. Steve is a swell guy. Windows is the portal to a higher conciousness. Stop this persecution of my brethren or the DLL gods will be angry.
Hypnotically yours,
John Doe
Reboot Administrator
It makes me speculate that someone in Redmond was smoking grass to call this grassroots.
Hey Bill, don't drink the water!
>Start small and build it into something greater,
>not the other way around.
I think that is likely the reason that the show didn't do too well. I don't think that the show being in KC was the problem, just that KC isn't ready to support a show of this magnitude.
Trade shows and conferences aren't things that can simply be put together at the last moment. A good TS/Conf is something you grow. Now I'm no event organizer, but it seems to me that there is a logical series of steps that have to happen to get things going.
- Call it a Conference instead of a Trade Show.
This puts more of an emphasis on learning and networking (the social kind)than on marketing.
- Focus on local/regional Linux companies/vendors.
Having Red Hat and Informix maybe a real coupe, but if the show is a waste of their time then they're going to be hesitant about coming back.
- Market the hell out of it. Not the expensive glitzy kind, but send out info to all the big Linux portals on the net.
- Drop the price to a more reasonable $20.
- Set reasonable goals for growth. Try to progressively increase the conference content/speakers/vendors each year and the next thing you know you've got a rocking Conference/Trade Show hybrid in the midwest. That ought to get the gospel of Open Source out in the midwest.
Like I said, I'm no event organizer, but it seems pretty logical to me, successful expos don't just happen overnight.
Good luck, I may not live in the midwest, but I certainly like hearing about successful Linux shows anywhere they happen.
OK I'll bite.
Linux is FREE!! It's free because you have FREEdom! It's free because you have the right do with it as you please. You can modify it, install it on as many machines as you like and you can even distribute it so long as you don't limit the buyers from exercising those same liberties. Yeah, Linux is affordable, for those with high speed internet connections its VERY affordable.
You're right most "cheap" companies wouldn't invest money to send their staff to a Linux expo. In fact, most "cheap" companies wouldn't have taken a gamble on Linux in the first place. They're too afraid of things like employee education costs, integration expenses, legacy application porting costs, and the (perceived) lack of "real" support for Linux. They're dead wrong, but that's the way most "cheap" companies think. They think that mainting the status quo is the best method to reducing costs over the long haul. As for the "progressive" companies that are already using linux in some manner, they look forward to sending their staff to any conference that makes them more knowledgable and productive.
Now for the Swami's prediction:
"Linux expos, like Linux itself, will steadily gain popularity as more and more people become more disgusted with proprietary software."
Thank you Swami.
We could just grab a warhead and test it in his basement.
hmm... on second thought, it might make a mess. Nope back to the computer then.
Can God use the threat of the DMCA to shutdown web sites linking to the genome map?
Are all of Nike's commercials stupid?
No. I thought the Y2k commercial was hilarious.
Do I have to pay for overpriced Nike products?
No. I don't have to buy them.
Do I care if Nike gets sued?
Yes! When some moron who has some how managed to avoid "natural selection" all these years sees the judicial system as a means to make a quick buck.
I'm not a big fan of Nike, but I already know I hate this guy even more. First the try and extort Amazon thing, and then this. This guy probably gets christmas cards from his attorney every year thanking him for keeping the law office in business.
Once again, the person doing the suing is in the UK. I'll admit we have some really pathetic laws and a lot of sue happy people, but the kettle is pretty black on the other side of the pond too.
One of the only problems I can see with open source games is in the multiplayer genre. Just imagine the difficulty of getting the various versions of a particular game to "sync-up" for a multiplayer game. Not to mention the increased ability to cheat inherent within this model. The only two solutions to this problem that I can see are:
- Create a level playing field check where each player's game is scanned for "illegal" modifications. The problem with that is that onesomeone will always find away around something like that and that very few people, myself included, like having their system scanned.
- The game company releases a mostly closed source game for multiplayer purposes. The problem with that being, who wants to install two games at roughly half a gig each. Then again, I suppose they could share most of the same files, but I still think it isn't the most attractive option.
I honestly believe, that games are better off in a closed/open hybrid state. I think all the development tools should be open source, as well as some of the game code and art, but the developers should keep some of the truly unique things to themselves, atleast for a little while.
Art is important too. The problem with many games is that art (sub: eye-candy) is the basis of the game (Myst). Some games put a premium on their art, and usually pay the consequences. However, there are quite a few that draw from these qualities and make for a much richer experience. There are games out their that achieve a good balance between art and gameplay. Starcraft, European Air War, Rainbow 6, the Quakes, and most of the EASports games, as well as many more examples that I'm leaving out, do an excellent job of mixing good visuals and good gameplay.
BTW my favorite game of all time is the graphically spartan Civ2. I have to admit that sometimes you don't need flashy graphics to make a great game, but they can certainly make it better.
Integral maybe, what other purpose could he possibly serve?
I find it hard to believe that Jar Jar is a character from an earlier movie. I also find the it even more difficult to believe that Jar Jar becomes Boba Fett, that's just plain lunacy. The part about the force is somewhat more believable, but I'm not holding my breath.
Anyway, anyone seen this before. A friend of mine pointed out this site to me before and I went back to see his review on Phantom Menace.
http://www.moviejuice.com/1999/starwars.htm
Here's a clip if the site gets slashdotted.
Every story has a beginning and every universe has its Jerry Lewis. Here it's the virtually unintelligible "Jar Jar Binks." Rasta rabbit, funny bunny, one part Chris Tucker and two parts Scooby Doo. Picture Chewbacca with A.D.D. and a gnawing propensity for pig latin. Silly Binks, Trix are for kids! "Ex-squeeze Me," says Jar Jar Berle, as the Friars Club guffaws uncontrollably. Enter the fifth Teletubby. "Uh-Ohhhhhh!"
Jar Jar Binks? Either some sorry soul at Lucasfilm posed the question: "What would it look like if a migraine headache could walk and talk?" or somebody's serving tainted shitake 'shrooms at the Lucas Ranch commissary. You guys, stop inhaling the hemp mousepads! Don't eat the brown trail mix!
When Jar Jar opened his mouth to speak, my first thought was: "You're kidding. For the whole movie?!" How long can Liam Neeson stand it before he hauls off and slugs this guy? Is this why Bill Gates wanted to limit us all to 640K? "The force is strong with this one," says Liam, "the force of my Jedi fist in his rabbity face, that is. Here's your Scooby Snack!"
The rest of the review is pretty good too. This guy is pretty funny, sometiems.
Anyone heard of him or know what he's done before? I don't recognize the name, not that I'm surprised it would have been so unlike Lucas to pick a "well-known" for such an important character.
Not that I'd think he'd be too keen on the possibility, I think Tim O'Reilly would be a pretty good choice. He's very intelligent, reasonable, and plays well with others.
I wont complain though, things could have been much worse. They could have extended an invitation to Jeff Bezos.
Don't forget New Hampshire. Not having a sales tax certainly rocks!
With interoperabilty comes the hope that developers don't have to name their product to identify it with a particular desktop environment.
Windows Apps aren't necessarily named more appropriately than their Linux cousins. However, Windows Apps Developers usually have an easier time marketing their products. Quicken isn't the most obvious title for a finance application, but Intuit has put a lot of marketing effort into "branding", which they have largely been able to accomplish.
Unfortunately for the linux community those kinds of resources are few and far between (I wont get into whether or not this is a good thing). To make matters worse, the average linux user has to choose from a seemingly limitless expanse of applications for each and every computing need. While this in my mind isn't a bad thing in and of itself, the fact that many of these applications are often buried in obscurity by their relatively nondescript names makes things much worse.
BTW, While I don't think its the "flashiest" name for it. I think GnuCash is a fitting name for the program.
The porno parody "Battlefield Bedroom" If your into that sort of thing that is.
Let me first say that I agree with you, but I get the impression that the book is more of a rant on the ills of the big bad corporations and their marketing machines.
The root problem is that everybody feels the need to belong to a group. The clothes we wear, the cars we drive, even the operating system we use makes us a a part of a group whether we want to be or not. This isn't a problem until we begin to believe that belonging to the group is more important to us then our own individuality. When kids think they need to kill for a pair of sneakers or when executives think they need to keep their mouths shut about poor labor practices just to maintain or establish their place in a group, thats when we have a problem. I think Ms. Klein is on to a serious problem in society, but from what I gather she's got a scapegoat and nothing more.
This isn't meant to disagree with you in anyway. In fact, I think we are largely in agreement here. Its just easier to reply than to start a whole new thread.
They are if the cost means nothing to you.
I'm surrounded by logos right now and I don't care. The reason I don't care is because just about everyone of them is sitting on a mighty fine product.
Dell (workstation)
one solid machine
O'Reilly (books)
The best damn computer books money can buy
Cambridge Soundworks (speakers)
They sound great
Nike (sneakers)
after 5 years they're still in one piece.
L.L.Bean (jeans)
most comfortable pair of jeans I've ever owned
Ralph Lauren (shirt)
comfortable and I live next to an outlet store
Swiss Army (watch)
Can't kill it and it keeps the time
Radisson (pen)
free, writes good, and it was a nice vacation
Red Hat (software box)
an excellent Linux distro
Dilbert (calendar)
It makes me laugh
Logos are not the problem, people are. If someone is dumb enough to buy something because of the logo and not the product, then that is their problem. Let's blame the consumers for their own failings and not try and reinvent capitalism in a kinder, gentler image.
NAPSTER IS NOT A LIBERATOR!
The founding fathers liberated 13 colonies from the British Empire. A moved that helped to form a new country built on unproven ideals, that have somehow managed to stand the test of time.
Napster hasn't liberated anyone from the record companies and their greedy retail cronies. There is a BIG fundamental difference between the founding fathers and Napster. The colonists were forced to do what England told them to. You don't have to buy that shiny new CD the day it comes out, its a luxury.
Don't get me wrong, I hate RIAA. And I hate paying $16 for a CD, which is why I don't! This whole gripe about CD's being overpriced is bullshit. There are plenty of record stores that sell the latest releases for reasonable prices ($10-$11). Napster didn't liberate me, Newbury Comics and some of the other smaller stores did.