I was talking about the "good" public schools. As for your success in college that was my point, the lack of preparation forces colleges to teach high school classes. The reason "good" public schools don't seem bad is because standards are so low. The bad ones are terrible but everyone knows that.
About a decade ago, I taught in good quality US colleges (UNC, UMinn, UCLA). Europeans are about 2 full years ahead as freshman. Same ratio as good quality private school students to public school students. American public schools (and I mean the "good" ones here) really do suck and really do fail to educate kids. I'm not sure why people refuse to see the truth when it is so incredibly obvious but they do. Colleges are for all practical purposes having to do the last 2 years of high school because their students no longer have the right background.
What is true about the situation on the destktop in 2006 that wasn't true about the server in 1986 with regards to the need for closed source software? The way you fix this is your replace piece by piece by piece. I suggest you look at the history of things like LKP project in the early 1990s it was very difficult to move the app vendors off SCO and Solaris to Linux. But the open source community did it. I don't really see anything different in today's situation on the desktop.
What's missing right now is a compelling advantage for the Linux desktop over the Windows desktop. Microsoft is a very well run company and has done a good job of avoiding creating a compelling advantage. DRM may be the killer mistake. But frankly I think the short term goal is get people using lots of free software on Windows.
1) She knows the media likes to hype nonsense. She's been around a lot of controversy 2) She know the television media does a terrible job of covering censorship issues since they are so censorious themselves yet preach free speech so that everything ends up confused. So the net result is she knows there is a controversy but knows she doesn't have the facts. 3) She has no idea what Oblivion is. The story on TV is the first time she's heard the term. 4) She mostly is not interested enough in the story to find out the facts, though she knows who to talk to if she actually cared 5) She is going to take the action by the ESRB seriously.
Nah big corporation == evil. If SGI had even 5% market share we could still talk about how bad Irix sucks and how SGI rapes you price wise. If Microsoft goes to 5% we can wane nostalgically about how great it was having the office suite always use the new technologies from the OS.
I don't know that it was inevitable. There are far more people using far more computers today to do things then were at the height of SGI. There is more money going into hardware today then went in in the late 80's and early 90's. There are lots of people who want be able to do sound and video better than you can do with so / so hardware.
I don't see any reason there can't be a workstation market today.
Can I ask why you would want to be changing kernels regularly on a firewall? And I'm assuming the sparc system is old so again why would you be changing kernels regularly on it? I'm not trying to start an argument I just don't understand why people change kernels on old hardware.
I've seen adds for illegal stuff. The penalties for child porn are huge, and the market is tiny, and enforcement is rigorous. Anyway everybody on/. agrees that there is on google child porn link. Just some silly lawsuit.
The mouse is controlled by terminal. Where the mouse is and the mouse curser never goes back and forth. You probably weren't using X but rather some other much less network transparent system (like remote windows)
If you don't mind me asking.. Most Infocom games actually required the box, as there are clues on the stuff (like the matchbook or the flip art or whatever). How do you get around that?
The primary advantage of the PC OS in my view isn't user installed software but compatiblity with applications your staff already knows how to use.
Its 10 years later. The issue of application lock in was not nearly so well understood then, that's really a PC phenomena so its not surprising that people not using PCs wouldn't have seen it. Think of your typical Linux user what applications do they use that they couldn't switch away from? That was the case for Unix apps, either they were
a) very standard: VIM, EMACS, tcsh, perl... and thus available on all systems b) very simple: pine, mosaic, gopher and thus easy to retrain c) very complex and very expensive: autocad, Oracle, netscape server
You can see that coming from that world thinking of application lock in for average users (kinds that didn't have c apps). Even for PC apps it wasn't a huge problem Wordperfect and Lotus 1-2-3 had PC versions.
Anyway the point was not whether he was wrong or not (history tells us he was) but rather what was the strategy.
Scott strategy was simple. Lots and lots of companies in the mid 90's were finding that they really didn't like the PC model (users install there own software) and were moving back towards a managed model with NT. But fundamentally if you are going to toss the primary advantage of the PC OS (user installed software) why not just go to dumb X terms and get all the advantages of a fully managed solution?
In 1990 you were paying too much for a 486 (Intel charged a ton for the coprocessor). The 386-40 with a 3rd party coprocessor was under half the cost and almost as good as a 486-25. A year or two later (which is when I assume you bought your 486) there wasn't quite the premium. As for Ram nothing brings up performance like RAM. As for Packard Bell I had 8 slots, originally it was 8x1 then I went to 4x4+4x1.
It was the Republican party that got up on the floor of the house and senate on issue after issue after issue. The media (IMHO) actually was pretty fair in their coverage. As a society we made a broad choice to cheapen our culture based on a philosophy of minimal government. I don't think its fair to attribute this fall off to the media, we did it to ourselves.
I agree with you (about the numbers and dates). I should mention that my 386-40 (1990) had 20 megs, and its not unreasonable to expect/.ers to spend on their hardware.
Even if you don't like the more controversial work, they still produced primarily opera, classical music, pbs, museum sculpture... We don't defund the defends department because one captain makes a choice in battle we don't like.
You are also forgetting that for a long time culture in America was subsidized by the government, who had interests other than profit. We had more fine art because as a society we wanted it exist and paid taxes to create it and perform it.
The word "anti-semitism" has nothing to do with reasonable categories of race or ethnicity at all. The original group of people it was being applied to (Germans from Jewish or partially Jewish families who were practicing Christians) were probably not by in large Semites ethnically at all. Just because the word "anti-semitism" contains the word "semite" is no more reason to associate the two than "through" containing "rough".
Further neither Hebrews nor Arabs are a race. I suggest you read up before posting.
Slashdot Mirror
Well I'm a product of public schools, what can you expect? :-)
Its the same finger (ring finger left hand). "Under" isn't fully positional in this context.
I was talking about the "good" public schools. As for your success in college that was my point, the lack of preparation forces colleges to teach high school classes. The reason "good" public schools don't seem bad is because standards are so low. The bad ones are terrible but everyone knows that.
About a decade ago, I taught in good quality US colleges (UNC, UMinn, UCLA). Europeans are about 2 full years ahead as freshman. Same ratio as good quality private school students to public school students. American public schools (and I mean the "good" ones here) really do suck and really do fail to educate kids. I'm not sure why people refuse to see the truth when it is so incredibly obvious but they do. Colleges are for all practical purposes having to do the last 2 years of high school because their students no longer have the right background.
What is true about the situation on the destktop in 2006 that wasn't true about the server in 1986 with regards to the need for closed source software? The way you fix this is your replace piece by piece by piece. I suggest you look at the history of things like LKP project in the early 1990s it was very difficult to move the app vendors off SCO and Solaris to Linux. But the open source community did it. I don't really see anything different in today's situation on the desktop.
What's missing right now is a compelling advantage for the Linux desktop over the Windows desktop. Microsoft is a very well run company and has done a good job of avoiding creating a compelling advantage. DRM may be the killer mistake. But frankly I think the short term goal is get people using lots of free software on Windows.
OK I"m pretty close to Aunt Betty Mae's age.
1) She knows the media likes to hype nonsense. She's been around a lot of controversy
2) She know the television media does a terrible job of covering censorship issues since they are so censorious themselves yet preach free speech so that everything ends up confused. So the net result is she knows there is a controversy but knows she doesn't have the facts.
3) She has no idea what Oblivion is. The story on TV is the first time she's heard the term.
4) She mostly is not interested enough in the story to find out the facts, though she knows who to talk to if she actually cared
5) She is going to take the action by the ESRB seriously.
how can you possiblly spam /. and forget to mention that Gary Coleman appeared twice in Buck Rogers. You can't even spam well, tisk tisk tisk.
Nah big corporation == evil. If SGI had even 5% market share we could still talk about how bad Irix sucks and how SGI rapes you price wise. If Microsoft goes to 5% we can wane nostalgically about how great it was having the office suite always use the new technologies from the OS.
I don't know that it was inevitable. There are far more people using far more computers today to do things then were at the height of SGI. There is more money going into hardware today then went in in the late 80's and early 90's. There are lots of people who want be able to do sound and video better than you can do with so / so hardware.
I don't see any reason there can't be a workstation market today.
I guess back it up and run the test for Andrew? OK so in both cases there is no production reason which is what I thought.
Can I ask why you would want to be changing kernels regularly on a firewall? And I'm assuming the sparc system is old so again why would you be changing kernels regularly on it? I'm not trying to start an argument I just don't understand why people change kernels on old hardware.
I've seen adds for illegal stuff. The penalties for child porn are huge, and the market is tiny, and enforcement is rigorous. Anyway everybody on /. agrees that there is on google child porn link. Just some silly lawsuit.
I've been on the internet since 1988 and heavily since 1992. I've never seen an add for child porn.
The mouse is controlled by terminal. Where the mouse is and the mouse curser never goes back and forth. You probably weren't using X but rather some other much less network transparent system (like remote windows)
X terminals provided swift action on the screen for graphical apps.
If you don't mind me asking.. Most Infocom games actually required the box, as there are clues on the stuff (like the matchbook or the flip art or whatever). How do you get around that?
Adventure PDP 11 20 years? You sure you aren't missing a decade in there somewhere? Mid 80's is Infocom is starting to fade Scott Adams is long gone.
The primary advantage of the PC OS in my view isn't user installed software but compatiblity with applications your staff already knows how to use.
... and thus available on all systems
Its 10 years later. The issue of application lock in was not nearly so well understood then, that's really a PC phenomena so its not surprising that people not using PCs wouldn't have seen it. Think of your typical Linux user what applications do they use that they couldn't switch away from? That was the case for Unix apps, either they were
a) very standard: VIM, EMACS, tcsh, perl
b) very simple: pine, mosaic, gopher and thus easy to retrain
c) very complex and very expensive: autocad, Oracle, netscape server
You can see that coming from that world thinking of application lock in for average users (kinds that didn't have c apps). Even for PC apps it wasn't a huge problem Wordperfect and Lotus 1-2-3 had PC versions.
Anyway the point was not whether he was wrong or not (history tells us he was) but rather what was the strategy.
Scott strategy was simple. Lots and lots of companies in the mid 90's were finding that they really didn't like the PC model (users install there own software) and were moving back towards a managed model with NT. But fundamentally if you are going to toss the primary advantage of the PC OS (user installed software) why not just go to dumb X terms and get all the advantages of a fully managed solution?
In 1990 you were paying too much for a 486 (Intel charged a ton for the coprocessor). The 386-40 with a 3rd party coprocessor was under half the cost and almost as good as a 486-25. A year or two later (which is when I assume you bought your 486) there wasn't quite the premium. As for Ram nothing brings up performance like RAM. As for Packard Bell I had 8 slots, originally it was 8x1 then I went to 4x4+4x1.
It was the Republican party that got up on the floor of the house and senate on issue after issue after issue. The media (IMHO) actually was pretty fair in their coverage. As a society we made a broad choice to cheapen our culture based on a philosophy of minimal government. I don't think its fair to attribute this fall off to the media, we did it to ourselves.
I agree with you (about the numbers and dates). I should mention that my 386-40 (1990) had 20 megs, and its not unreasonable to expect /.ers to spend on their hardware.
Even if you don't like the more controversial work, they still produced primarily opera, classical music, pbs, museum sculpture... We don't defund the defends department because one captain makes a choice in battle we don't like.
You are also forgetting that for a long time culture in America was subsidized by the government, who had interests other than profit. We had more fine art because as a society we wanted it exist and paid taxes to create it and perform it.
The word "anti-semitism" has nothing to do with reasonable categories of race or ethnicity at all. The original group of people it was being applied to (Germans from Jewish or partially Jewish families who were practicing Christians) were probably not by in large Semites ethnically at all. Just because the word "anti-semitism" contains the word "semite" is no more reason to associate the two than "through" containing "rough".
Further neither Hebrews nor Arabs are a race. I suggest you read up before posting.