This computer sounds very impressive. And I am sure it serves a useful purpose. I wish now that someone would actully innovate. I think it is high time we invented a better way of interacting with a computer. Pushing buttons isn't particularly convenient, even if you type reasonably fast.
I think the philosophy expounded in the
Anti-Mac article should be taken further. Why be limited just t o the GUI and the commands? We should be rethinking the entire thing, from the mouse to the keyboard to the display screen. Admittedly one can't get any better than a screen, but buttons?
Certainly we need to think of something that takes into account all of the human hand's advantages and disadvantages. Ergonomic keyboards and mice are not enough.
As has already been observed, the problem is not unique to Linux, or to the software industry for that matter. Academia and literature have had this problem for ages. For example, one seldom finds that a book is eviscerated in The Times Literary Supplement, because the reviewer is identified. If he is an up and coming write, he would be risking a lot by ripping up the work of an established writer, for obvious reasons. So to read the real reviews, one turns to Private Eye (sorry if this seems a bit unfamiliar to American/.ers), where the reviews are anonymous, and one frequestly finds a book being lambasted.
Similarly in academia, an young assistant professor will review a new text by an established person `to suck up to him,' in the words of one of my professors. The only way to get honest reviews of anything ultimately, is to have a moderated forum, where reviews may be posted anonymously. I propose that/. start one, I would be willing to lend a hand, as would, I am sure, many others.
A question that one can ask is whether one can train a computer science (CS) undergraduate without really needing a single text printed in the '90s. In my opinion a decent Bachelor's in CS should include courses in the following:
Theory of Programming Languages (PL)
Complier Design
Natural Language Processing
Theory and Design of Operating Systems (OS)
Complexity Theory
Algorithm Design and Implementaion
Computer Architecture
I think a simple and effective test to determine whether a field is stagnant is to enquire whether an '80 (or '70s) textbook is sufficient for the subject. If the answer is yes, then the field is stangnant, else no.
I think Pike believes that an '80s or '70s text would be good enough for PL and OS.
I think it is quite inaccurate to say that Mathematics is `completed except for a "few outstanding problems".'
Mathematics was essentially recreated in the '50s and the '60 with the work of Grothendieck. Serre, Weil, Deligne, essentially carried the torch he had lit. The programme that he had charted is nowhere near completion.
Similarly Hoermander's work essentially provided a new foundation for Analysis.
There `programmes of research' in other areas as well, notably number theory. Stochastic Analysis, is still in its infancy, even though it has been around for the last 25 years or so. In many areas, especially in PDE's people are beginning to look again at `applied' problems, which had been neglected since the '50s, as there was this mania for abstraction.
Much needs to be done still, it is certainly an exciting time to be a Mathematician. Yes, much of Hilbert's original programme appears to have been taken care of, but some problems still remain. The Riemann Hypothesis is still unproved, and I think there is a long way to go.
I forget which Mathematician it was who said it, but `the golden age of Mathematics was not of Euclid, but it is ours.'
I would like to add that education plays a big role. This has to start right when people are in college, they must not only be taught about standards, but also that it is in everyone's interest to maintain and develop reasonable standards.
Most internet standards today originated from research labs and universities. They were developed by people whose prime aim was to do something well and to create something that would be useful. This should be the underlying spirit when one begins to work on a new standard. Somehow, the fact that these ideas developed in a research environment, where the prime emphasis was on good design, ensured that a good job was done, and also that they were respected by other labs and universities. So they were able to become universal.
I am not suggesting that companies should not develop their own standards. If they are in the poistion to do so, they certainly should---everyone benefits from a good idea. I do believe however, that in any such effort, the spirit should be the one displayed by researchers. I think it is possible to wed the profit motive to good research.
Ulitmately, interoperability can only be ensured through trust and people acting in good faith. Remember the Microsoft versus Netscape feud? It was settled only when the two companies, voluntarily decided to do the right thing.
I think the thing to do, is to provide electronic versions only. If you provide pdf/HTML files, then people are going to print them anyway, so it is fairly pointless for you to provide a `hard' version.
Whatever be the arguments regarding convenience, ultimately, the basic question, from your point of view is `Should the company change it's policy and stop providing printed manuals?' So, in my opinion, the sensible thing is to provide a printed version if and only if the customer specifically requests for one. Most customers would have adequate printing facilities, and can print their own. This is going to save you chaps some trouble, because you are going to avoid the hassle of printing and shipping a `book manual'.
As far as the general argument of electronic vs. book form is concerned, the basicdifference is that one can't flip through a screen full of information, one scrolls through, and that is a tad inconvenient. Given your basic problem, which is a question of policy, the screen vs. book question is rather moot, since those who like to read a book will print the manual anyway---they'll print copies for personal use irrespective of whether or not their is a copy available in the firm's library, and those who like to read things on the screen, will stick to HTML or whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
12:04am, PST, @Home still up!
--Sanatan
I think the philosophy expounded in the Anti-Mac article should be taken further. Why be limited just t o the GUI and the commands? We should be rethinking the entire thing, from the mouse to the keyboard to the display screen. Admittedly one can't get any better than a screen, but buttons? Certainly we need to think of something that takes into account all of the human hand's advantages and disadvantages. Ergonomic keyboards and mice are not enough.
--Sanatan
Similarly in academia, an young assistant professor will review a new text by an established person `to suck up to him,' in the words of one of my professors. The only way to get honest reviews of anything ultimately, is to have a moderated forum, where reviews may be posted anonymously. I propose that /. start one, I would be willing to lend a hand, as would, I am sure, many others.
What say slashdotters?
--Sanatan
--Sanatan
Theory of Programming Languages (PL)
Complier Design
Natural Language Processing
Theory and Design of Operating Systems (OS)
Complexity Theory
Algorithm Design and Implementaion
Computer Architecture
I think a simple and effective test to determine whether a field is stagnant is to enquire whether an '80 (or '70s) textbook is sufficient for the subject. If the answer is yes, then the field is stangnant, else no.
I think Pike believes that an '80s or '70s text would be good enough for PL and OS.
--Sanatan
Mathematics was essentially recreated in the '50s and the '60 with the work of Grothendieck. Serre, Weil, Deligne, essentially carried the torch he had lit. The programme that he had charted is nowhere near completion.
Similarly Hoermander's work essentially provided a new foundation for Analysis.
There `programmes of research' in other areas as well, notably number theory. Stochastic Analysis, is still in its infancy, even though it has been around for the last 25 years or so. In many areas, especially in PDE's people are beginning to look again at `applied' problems, which had been neglected since the '50s, as there was this mania for abstraction.
Much needs to be done still, it is certainly an exciting time to be a Mathematician. Yes, much of Hilbert's original programme appears to have been taken care of, but some problems still remain. The Riemann Hypothesis is still unproved, and I think there is a long way to go.
I forget which Mathematician it was who said it, but `the golden age of Mathematics was not of Euclid, but it is ours.'
--Sanatan
Most internet standards today originated from research labs and universities. They were developed by people whose prime aim was to do something well and to create something that would be useful. This should be the underlying spirit when one begins to work on a new standard. Somehow, the fact that these ideas developed in a research environment, where the prime emphasis was on good design, ensured that a good job was done, and also that they were respected by other labs and universities. So they were able to become universal.
I am not suggesting that companies should not develop their own standards. If they are in the poistion to do so, they certainly should---everyone benefits from a good idea. I do believe however, that in any such effort, the spirit should be the one displayed by researchers. I think it is possible to wed the profit motive to good research.
Ulitmately, interoperability can only be ensured through trust and people acting in good faith. Remember the Microsoft versus Netscape feud? It was settled only when the two companies, voluntarily decided to do the right thing.
--Sanatan
Whatever be the arguments regarding convenience, ultimately, the basic question, from your point of view is `Should the company change it's policy and stop providing printed manuals?' So, in my opinion, the sensible thing is to provide a printed version if and only if the customer specifically requests for one. Most customers would have adequate printing facilities, and can print their own. This is going to save you chaps some trouble, because you are going to avoid the hassle of printing and shipping a `book manual'.
As far as the general argument of electronic vs. book form is concerned, the basicdifference is that one can't flip through a screen full of information, one scrolls through, and that is a tad inconvenient. Given your basic problem, which is a question of policy, the screen vs. book question is rather moot, since those who like to read a book will print the manual anyway---they'll print copies for personal use irrespective of whether or not their is a copy available in the firm's library, and those who like to read things on the screen, will stick to HTML or whatever.
--Sanatan Rai