Computers are extremely complex tools, if people are unwilling to learn the little bit that it takes to operate a computer, then they shouldn't be doing it.
You seem to be contradicting yourself. The first part of your sentence states that computers are "extremely complex tools," and then you say that people should "learn the little bit it takes to operate [one]".
Which is it? Are they complicated or do they take "a little bit" to learn?
So, in summary, I think anyone developing configuration tools should really consider keeping the tool's users informed about what is going on under the hood, rather than hiding operations completely
I dunno. Isn't hiding operations rather the point of a "user-friendly" tool? One of the reasons that the Macintosh was heralded by the computer press was that it hides the underlying details from the user.
This is a timeless debate that has gone on forever, but really the hiding of the nuts and bolts is really what has one in the hearts and minds of the users. This is why Micros~1 Windoze is so popular.
Remember that many Windows users, especially newbies, are confused even by the presence of multiple windows. In my line of work, when a modal dialog box would pop up (one that doesn't let you do anything until you dismiss it), users would instantly get confused (why can't I click this?), or even just other instances of multiple windows (when I click this pulldown menu, this other window that was on top goes away, why?)
Having complicated details on the screen confuse most casual users. They'll be completely intimated by it. Even the stupid "Device Manager" in Windows 9x confuses many clueless users. Forget that, even the CONTROL PANEL confuses them.
I know what you'll say next: well, casual users shouldn't use admin tools. But even seemingly simple things like installing or configuring a printer are really system administration tasks. Mounting network shares, adding devices, installing software, etc. are all system administration tasks that casual users often find doing for themselves, despite having adequate IT staffing. And technical details are intimidating and confusing to these users. They just want to point and click and get their work done. They don't care about technical details and don't want to know what is going on under the hood.
Just my $0.02
Re:Whoops... (why not public domain?)
on
GPL for Books?
·
· Score: 2
OTOH, while IANAL, I believe that the courts have usually held that if something is in the public domain, then the author cannot be held liable for the information contained within (except for libel)
While IANAL, I should point out that (I believe) that there is no specific doctrine allowing the copying of media other than computer software for archival purposes, but one could easily say that the spirit of the law allows for it.
The specific clause that places making archival copies of software under "fair use" comes from the U.S. Software Act of 1980, which explicitly allows the making of archival copies. Nowhere else in copyright law is this right explicity allowed.
Of course, one could always argue that DVDs are computer software, since the information on them is stored in digital form and processed by a microprocessor, much in the same way a computer does...in fact a DVD player is really a computer....
Don't agree with a hostile post? Don't respond in kind.
It really depends on the situation. There's a difference between a post that is hostile in the sense of a personal attack, and the hostile post in the sense of a hotly-debated topic. Just because a post may be on the hostile side doesn't mean you should ignore it.
Posts that are nothing more than personal attacks or other types of flames should probably be ignored and most are, at least by the intelligent people. Posts that may have a hostile tone, OTOH, but are otherwise intelligent need to be handled differently.
If you are involved in a conversation, then no matter how rude and obnoxious the other person may sound, its in your best interests to be as nice as possible. Make them seem like the a$$hole. If someone shoots off to you, but otherwise seems intelligent, then a polite, well-thought out, intelligent response will win their respect. And if it doesn't, then screw 'em, they're not worth your time.
With freedom comes responsibility. Yes, I will defend to the death the right of the 14 year old 31337 hax0rZ to post whatever they want and flame whoever they want. Its their right.
However, with freedom comes personal responsibility. At some point, one most grow up and be mature in their communications. We do need education out there that teaches these 14-year old 5crip7 k1dd13z that its NOT NICE to flame newbies.
No, no one should be silenced for any reason. Thats why Slashdot, for instance, allows you to turn all the moderation features off. OTOH, Slashdot has a moderation system. And that moderation system is a form of "social pressure" (to use Katz' own words) to be responsible for what you say.
So, if you can't be responsible enough to come up with intelligent, well-thought out comments, then the people who care about that sort of thing will ignore you.
I think though, that the Slashdot moderation system is sort of self-serving. Those who care enough to moderate are also likely to be the same sort of people with like mindsets. OTOH, I have been pleasantly surprised in the past when posts derrogatory towards Linux or open source have been moderated up, especially when the poster was intelligent and thoughtful.
No free speech does NOT mean nice speech. The purpose of the 1st Amendment is to protect offensive speech. But exercising your free speech means being responsible and at least have something intelligent to say if you're going to say something. Don't say crap like Katz is on crack, because that will get you nowhere. If you disagree with Jon Katz, or Rob Malda, or Linus Torvalds or RMS or ESR, or anyone, then say WHY you disagree, and bring up intelligent points to support your case. Don't just say Katz is a moron, if you really think he's a moron then PROVE IT, and people will respect you for it.
In office (or excel, frontpage etc) for example I can just "draw" a table using a pen as if i was drawing in a CAD application.
DRAW a table? Hardly. You can draw boxes, yes, but you can't really draw a "table." I have Office 97 on the PC I'm using right now. And you can draw boxes in StarOffice, too.
It's problem lay in it's open driver APIs which encouraged people to write really SHITTY drivers
Linux has APIs for writing drivers that are MORE open than Windows 9x. Remember that in Linux, most drivers install essentially as patches to the kernel. (Even if you are using kernel modules, these basically patch the kernel at runtime). I have yet to see any really shitty drivers for Linux.
Windows has (since then) 'caught' up in the areas it was lacking, and excelled in the areas where it has originally excelled. eg. great extensible shell, great componentization and GREAT APIs for developers.
Windows has caught up with Linux? Ha! Thats funny. Tell that to the version of Windows that runs in my VMWare and crashes at least twice a day, or the Windows 95 (OSR2) thats on my work PC that crashes every 5 minutes. I can't remember the last time I rebooted my Linux box, except that it was to upgrade my sound card.
Great APIs? Yeah, if you can get Microsoft to document them. Sheesh.
THe only thing that I will admit about Windows 98 is that it does have a VERY NICE, well-polished shell. KDE and GNOME still have a long way to go to catch up. But for basic application launching and file management, both KDE and GNOME match Windows 9x toe-for-toe. Its only the little things like dragging and dropping to manage the application menu or a truly usable integrated Web browser where KDE and GNOME are currently lacking. (Although from the reports I hear about KDE 2.0, its getting better).
and they didn't make it clear enough you needed libc 2.1.
Yet, in the thirst for a taste of Microsoft's blood and caught up in its own delusions of grandeur, the Linux community is actingmore and more like the very people they claim to despise. Any action is sanctionable as long as it furthers the goal of open source. Great products, whose only technical "flaw" is that they aren't open-sourced, are gone after with the same ferocity and tenacity as if they are the latest incarnation of bloatware from Microsoft.
In case you've missed it, this attitude isn't anything new. It goes back to the Open Source communities roots -- all the way back to RMS himself. Many zealots will say that ALL softare should be open source, and you shouldn't use any program that isn't open source.
Personally, I just like software that doesn't suck. Many mature open source software projects fit this description, and thats why you see me using open source software.
But, there is some proprietary software that doesn't suck. Be is one of them. I don't use Be because there is(currently) no compelling reason for me to do so. I hear that the media support is nice and all, but I don't do media, so unless they intend on positioning this OS as something more generic, and more applications become available, then I might have some compelling reason to move.
My current reason for using Linux is that it is an awesome developers platform. The development tools available on Linux are unequaled in the industry: no proprietary software package is better than what is currently offered on Linux, IMHO.
OTOH, if you are an idealist, like many in the Open Source community (ie, hackers) are, then you will probably say that NO proprietary software is better than its open source counterparts. If this attitude offends you, then maybe the open source community and places like Slashdot that support it are not where you should be hanging out.
I don't possess the attitude, but I understand it and accept it as commonplace. It doesn't offend me personally, although I don't necessarily agree with it. If I can be tolerant of other people's views, then I would expect the same of other people that they would be tolerant of my views. So far, I haven't been disappointed.
I mean - people are willing to call a complete stranger on the phone, and give them their credit card number. Same goes with a waiter in a restaurant, for example. I guess there's more potential for abuse online, since a list of 1000's of numbers might be available... but using a credit card in almost *any* fashion has the potential for abuse or theft.
I used to work for RadioShack, and believe me there was a LARGE potential for abuse there. I would assume this potential exists anywhere in retail, but....
It was a small matter to rip off HUNDREDS of credit card numbers per week. (Not that I did this...but I'm sure some people who worked for RS did...). This may have changed since they converted to a new register system a couple of years back, but...
RadioShack would keep the yellow carbon copies of all receipts printed out. The ones for credit cards would go into a separate bin. The bin was not secured in anyway: it was sitting on a shelf, in plain sight to someone behind the counter. All one would have to do is wait till the manager went on break, and start copying credit card numbers down (yes the reciepts listed the FULL credit card number right on them, not simply the first four or last four digits as is now common place). At that time, most stores were not even videotaped, so the potential for abuse was QUITE great.
RadioShack no longer prints the full credit card number on the receipt, so this is no longer an issue with them. Most stores are now videotaped (since in the 90s many managers started setting up videocameras taken from stock to tape the store, it became common practice).
So think twice next time you use your credit card -- ANYWHERE, not just online. Make sure your CC# is not printed on the receipt in full....if it is, demand to see the "carbon copy" and black it out with a magic marker.
Thats not true at all. If it were true, there would be a LOT more Linux desktop users than there are now.
For instance, StarOffice is good enough for most basic office productivity tasks, Netscape 4.7 is a reasonable alternative to Internet Exploiter, and GIMP is great for editing Web graphics.
But users want talking paperclips, installation programs that look more like videogames than installers, and nice, four-color glossy boxes/manuals with lots of pictures and no content.They care about flash and sizzle and don't give a damn about the steak.
Case in point: back in the BBS days, most users were dialing out with flashy programs like Qmodem with fancy sounds and point-and-click interfaces. Many of those users went to AOL and its bretheren for the same reason: flashy graphics.
Me, I preferred my little {Commo} program that wouldn't crash and used litte memory and ran efficiently, connecting to BBSes rich with content and local flavor to the sizzle of Prodigy or whatever.
Guess who won? Thats right: AOL. Horrible technology will always win over technological perfection when the former has all the bells and whistles.
Another case in point is the Wintel architecture. Despite the fact that Amiga and OS/2 and Macintosh and other platforms had superior technology, Windows won. Windows will continue to win while it has flash and sizzle. Linux may have substance, but Windows has flash and sizzle. Flash and sizzle always wins.
some things are betting in gimp. Scripting is one that comes to mind...
errmmmm...photoshop doesn't even really have scripting, but I guess thats the point.:)
Yeah, the main advantage of PhotoShop is prepress work. GIMPs support is highly lacking. But for editing Web graphics, 99% of what PhotoShop does is in GIMP. Like you said, somethings are better in one vs. the other. Your choice of tool really depends on what you need.
Actually, while the GIMP is a damn nice piece of software, I would not say that it is superior to PhotoShop. It has most of the functionality of PhotoShop at the best possible price (free), but there are still some things I can do in PS that I cannot do in GIMP.
99% of all Average Joe Lusers don't give a damn about performance, so PPPD may as well have NO advantage to whats in Windows.
KDE is good, but its not as polished as Windows is (in terms of user interface).
FreeCell is included with the standard KDE distribution (its part of Kpatience, which has several solitaire games built in)
The lesson is that people will forgive almost endless technical inferiority, but they won't forgive something that is not useful to them. It's all about the content/applications. And until Linux gets at least some applications that are superior to the equivalents in Windows, it will never make any inroads into the desktop world.
Hey now! Kpatience is far superior to Windows Solitaire.;)
The load is faster than Netscape on Windoze. The crashing problems I had were with the glibc version, which appears to be really buggy (perhaps a problem with threads?) Switching to the libc5 version cleared up a lot. (I have Caldera 2.2, which uses glibc 2.1)
Incidentally I'm posting from Mozilla M12. Its come a long way, but still has a long way to go. Perhaps there will be a stable version by the end of the year (guessing, don't really know)
I understand your point of view, but my own experience is that most people are not stupid. They ignore current licensing terms because they are unenforced and unenforceable.
Well, bear in mind that Slashdot readers, are on average smarter than the general population. I hate to say it but most people are basically ignorant of anything technical and especially software licenses.
I'm not saying that they're stupid, merely uninformed. Ask your average grandmother what a software license is and she'll probably have no clue.
Why would it not be in MS's best interest to flood the market with dirt cheap or free copies of VC++ and development kits for the younguns to play with?
Well, they do offer deeply-discounted educational versions for students. Like $99 or something.
I agree, though. Flood the marketplace with free compilers. They could place restrictions on compiling commercial apps with it and then real developers would by the real thing. Not that I like closed-source software, but I guess M$ has to make money somehow. There software is just too crappy to give away for free.:)
My feelings about UCITA are that it imposes such horrifying terms on customers that many businesses will turn to open source software to protect themselves.
I wish I could say that were true, but its not. The fact of the matter is, most businesses haven't even read the licensing agreements that exist in mass market software and have no idea the kinds of restrictions that already exist in the EULAs and such, enforceable or not. This law simply legitimatizes these existing gestapo (sp?) restrictions.
If businesses were aware of the restrictions that already exist, they wouldn't buy the software. Either that or they are aware of them and they just don't care. (I find this hard to believe, though). Case in point: the Microsoft EULA restricts reverse engineering, the McAfee license doesn't allow for negative reviews. Yet, there is no shortage of companies that use Microsoft Office or McAfee VirusScan. Companies either don't know about these restrictions or they just don't care.
Most consumers are just simply clueless. They don't read the licenses and don't care. Most ordinary people I talk to think that when they buy a product, they are a PURCHASING a copy of the program, with full rights to do whatever they want with it. What they are really buying is a license, and the UCITA legitimizes this practice.
Some people are *really* into the "collectible" aspect of CDs -- the jacket and liner notes for some are as valuable as the audio. This is personally not my thing, but somne of my friends think like this.
A pirated CD certainly is worth nothing to a collector.
Slashdot Mirror
Computers are extremely complex tools, if people are unwilling to learn the little bit that it takes to operate a computer, then they shouldn't be doing it.
You seem to be contradicting yourself. The first part of your sentence states that computers are "extremely complex tools," and then you say that people should "learn the little bit it takes to operate [one]".
Which is it? Are they complicated or do they take "a little bit" to learn?
I don't think you know what you're talking about.
Although, now that I think about it, some people's exhalations are pretty noxious... ;)
Yeah, but I'll bet those exhalations contain more than just carbon dioxide!
Hey, y'all're missin' the point!
:) This is "News for Nerds" right?
That guy ended up with this girl. This proves that even total geeks like this guy can end up with a hot girl like this!
:)
*ducking*
So, in summary, I think anyone developing configuration tools should really consider keeping the tool's users informed about what is going on under the hood, rather than hiding operations completely
I dunno. Isn't hiding operations rather the point of a "user-friendly" tool? One of the reasons that the Macintosh was heralded by the computer press was that it hides the underlying details from the user.
This is a timeless debate that has gone on forever, but really the hiding of the nuts and bolts is really what has one in the hearts and minds of the users. This is why Micros~1 Windoze is so popular.
Remember that many Windows users, especially newbies, are confused even by the presence of multiple windows. In my line of work, when a modal dialog box would pop up (one that doesn't let you do anything until you dismiss it), users would instantly get confused (why can't I click this?), or even just other instances of multiple windows (when I click this pulldown menu, this other window that was on top goes away, why?)
Having complicated details on the screen confuse most casual users. They'll be completely intimated by it. Even the stupid "Device Manager" in Windows 9x confuses many clueless users. Forget that, even the CONTROL PANEL confuses them.
I know what you'll say next: well, casual users shouldn't use admin tools. But even seemingly simple things like installing or configuring a printer are really system administration tasks. Mounting network shares, adding devices, installing software, etc. are all system administration tasks that casual users often find doing for themselves, despite having adequate IT staffing. And technical details are intimidating and confusing to these users. They just want to point and click and get their work done. They don't care about technical details and don't want to know what is going on under the hood.
Just my $0.02
OTOH, while IANAL, I believe that the courts have usually held that if something is in the public domain, then the author cannot be held liable for the information contained within (except for libel)
While IANAL, I should point out that (I believe) that there is no specific doctrine allowing the copying of media other than computer software for archival purposes, but one could easily say that the spirit of the law allows for it.
The specific clause that places making archival copies of software under "fair use" comes from the U.S. Software Act of 1980, which explicitly allows the making of archival copies. Nowhere else in copyright law is this right explicity allowed.
Of course, one could always argue that DVDs are computer software, since the information on them is stored in digital form and processed by a microprocessor, much in the same way a computer does...in fact a DVD player is really a computer....
Don't agree with a hostile post? Don't respond in kind.
It really depends on the situation. There's a difference between a post that is hostile in the sense of a personal attack, and the hostile post in the sense of a hotly-debated topic. Just because a post may be on the hostile side doesn't mean you should ignore it.
Posts that are nothing more than personal attacks or other types of flames should probably be ignored and most are, at least by the intelligent people. Posts that may have a hostile tone, OTOH, but are otherwise intelligent need to be handled differently.
If you are involved in a conversation, then no matter how rude and obnoxious the other person may sound, its in your best interests to be as nice as possible. Make them seem like the a$$hole. If someone shoots off to you, but otherwise seems intelligent, then a polite, well-thought out, intelligent response will win their respect. And if it doesn't, then screw 'em, they're not worth your time.
With freedom comes responsibility. Yes, I will defend to the death the right of the 14 year old 31337 hax0rZ to post whatever they want and flame whoever they want. Its their right.
However, with freedom comes personal responsibility. At some point, one most grow up and be mature in their communications. We do need education out there that teaches these 14-year old 5crip7 k1dd13z that its NOT NICE to flame newbies.
No, no one should be silenced for any reason. Thats why Slashdot, for instance, allows you to turn all the moderation features off. OTOH, Slashdot has a moderation system. And that moderation system is a form of "social pressure" (to use Katz' own words) to be responsible for what you say.
So, if you can't be responsible enough to come up with intelligent, well-thought out comments, then the people who care about that sort of thing will ignore you.
I think though, that the Slashdot moderation system is sort of self-serving. Those who care enough to moderate are also likely to be the same sort of people with like mindsets. OTOH, I have been pleasantly surprised in the past when posts derrogatory towards Linux or open source have been moderated up, especially when the poster was intelligent and thoughtful.
No free speech does NOT mean nice speech. The purpose of the 1st Amendment is to protect offensive speech. But exercising your free speech means being responsible and at least have something intelligent to say if you're going to say something. Don't say crap like Katz is on crack, because that will get you nowhere. If you disagree with Jon Katz, or Rob Malda, or Linus Torvalds or RMS or ESR, or anyone, then say WHY you disagree, and bring up intelligent points to support your case. Don't just say Katz is a moron, if you really think he's a moron then PROVE IT, and people will respect you for it.
In office (or excel, frontpage etc) for example I can just "draw" a table using a pen as if i was drawing in a CAD application.
DRAW a table? Hardly. You can draw boxes, yes, but you can't really draw a "table." I have Office 97 on the PC I'm using right now. And you can draw boxes in StarOffice, too.
It's problem lay in it's open driver APIs which encouraged people to write really SHITTY drivers
Linux has APIs for writing drivers that are MORE open than Windows 9x. Remember that in Linux, most drivers install essentially as patches to the kernel. (Even if you are using kernel modules, these basically patch the kernel at runtime). I have yet to see any really shitty drivers for Linux.
Windows has (since then) 'caught' up in the areas it was lacking, and excelled in the areas where it has originally excelled. eg. great extensible shell, great componentization and GREAT APIs for developers.
Windows has caught up with Linux? Ha! Thats funny. Tell that to the version of Windows that runs in my VMWare and crashes at least twice a day, or the Windows 95 (OSR2) thats on my work PC that crashes every 5 minutes. I can't remember the last time I rebooted my Linux box, except that it was to upgrade my sound card.
Great APIs? Yeah, if you can get Microsoft to document them. Sheesh.
THe only thing that I will admit about Windows 98 is that it does have a VERY NICE, well-polished shell. KDE and GNOME still have a long way to go to catch up. But for basic application launching and file management, both KDE and GNOME match Windows 9x toe-for-toe. Its only the little things like dragging and dropping to manage the application menu or a truly usable integrated Web browser where KDE and GNOME are currently lacking. (Although from the reports I hear about KDE 2.0, its getting better).
and they didn't make it clear enough you needed libc 2.1.
Did you try reading the file named README??
Yet, in the thirst for a taste of Microsoft's blood and caught up in its own delusions of grandeur, the Linux community is actingmore and more like the very people they claim to despise. Any action is sanctionable as long as it furthers the goal of open source. Great products, whose only technical "flaw" is that they aren't open-sourced, are gone after with the same ferocity and tenacity as if they are the latest incarnation of bloatware from Microsoft.
In case you've missed it, this attitude isn't anything new. It goes back to the Open Source communities roots -- all the way back to RMS himself. Many zealots will say that ALL softare should be open source, and you shouldn't use any program that isn't open source.
Personally, I just like software that doesn't suck. Many mature open source software projects fit this description, and thats why you see me using open source software.
But, there is some proprietary software that doesn't suck. Be is one of them. I don't use Be because there is(currently) no compelling reason for me to do so. I hear that the media support is nice and all, but I don't do media, so unless they intend on positioning this OS as something more generic, and more applications become available, then I might have some compelling reason to move.
My current reason for using Linux is that it is an awesome developers platform. The development tools available on Linux are unequaled in the industry: no proprietary software package is better than what is currently offered on Linux, IMHO.
OTOH, if you are an idealist, like many in the Open Source community (ie, hackers) are, then you will probably say that NO proprietary software is better than its open source counterparts. If this attitude offends you, then maybe the open source community and places like Slashdot that support it are not where you should be hanging out.
I don't possess the attitude, but I understand it and accept it as commonplace. It doesn't offend me personally, although I don't necessarily agree with it. If I can be tolerant of other people's views, then I would expect the same of other people that they would be tolerant of my views. So far, I haven't been disappointed.
I mean - people are willing to call a complete stranger on the phone, and give them their credit card number. Same goes with a waiter in a restaurant, for example. I guess there's more potential for abuse online, since a list of 1000's of numbers might be available... but using a credit card in almost *any* fashion has the potential for abuse or theft.
I used to work for RadioShack, and believe me there was a LARGE potential for abuse there. I would assume this potential exists anywhere in retail, but....
It was a small matter to rip off HUNDREDS of credit card numbers per week. (Not that I did this...but I'm sure some people who worked for RS did...). This may have changed since they converted to a new register system a couple of years back, but...
RadioShack would keep the yellow carbon copies of all receipts printed out. The ones for credit cards would go into a separate bin. The bin was not secured in anyway: it was sitting on a shelf, in plain sight to someone behind the counter. All one would have to do is wait till the manager went on break, and start copying credit card numbers down (yes the reciepts listed the FULL credit card number right on them, not simply the first four or last four digits as is now common place). At that time, most stores were not even videotaped, so the potential for abuse was QUITE great.
RadioShack no longer prints the full credit card number on the receipt, so this is no longer an issue with them. Most stores are now videotaped (since in the 90s many managers started setting up videocameras taken from stock to tape the store, it became common practice).
So think twice next time you use your credit card -- ANYWHERE, not just online. Make sure your CC# is not printed on the receipt in full....if it is, demand to see the "carbon copy" and black it out with a magic marker.
Thats not true at all. If it were true, there would be a LOT more Linux desktop users than there are now.
For instance, StarOffice is good enough for most basic office productivity tasks, Netscape 4.7 is a reasonable alternative to Internet Exploiter, and GIMP is great for editing Web graphics.
But users want talking paperclips, installation programs that look more like videogames than installers, and nice, four-color glossy boxes/manuals with lots of pictures and no content.They care about flash and sizzle and don't give a damn about the steak.
Case in point: back in the BBS days, most users were dialing out with flashy programs like Qmodem with fancy sounds and point-and-click interfaces. Many of those users went to AOL and its bretheren for the same reason: flashy graphics.
Me, I preferred my little {Commo} program that wouldn't crash and used litte memory and ran efficiently, connecting to BBSes rich with content and local flavor to the sizzle of Prodigy or whatever.
Guess who won? Thats right: AOL. Horrible technology will always win over technological perfection when the former has all the bells and whistles.
Another case in point is the Wintel architecture. Despite the fact that Amiga and OS/2 and Macintosh and other platforms had superior technology, Windows won. Windows will continue to win while it has flash and sizzle. Linux may have substance, but Windows has flash and sizzle. Flash and sizzle always wins.
some things are betting in gimp. Scripting is one that comes to mind ...
:)
errmmmm...photoshop doesn't even really have scripting, but I guess thats the point.
Yeah, the main advantage of PhotoShop is prepress work. GIMPs support is highly lacking. But for editing Web graphics, 99% of what PhotoShop does is in GIMP. Like you said, somethings are better in one vs. the other. Your choice of tool really depends on what you need.
Actually, while the GIMP is a damn nice piece of software, I would not say that it is superior to PhotoShop. It has most of the functionality of PhotoShop at the best possible price (free), but there are still some things I can do in PS that I cannot do in GIMP.
99% of all Average Joe Lusers don't give a damn about performance, so PPPD may as well have NO advantage to whats in Windows.
KDE is good, but its not as polished as Windows is (in terms of user interface).
FreeCell is included with the standard KDE distribution (its part of Kpatience, which has several solitaire games built in)
The lesson is that people will forgive almost endless technical inferiority, but they won't forgive something that is not useful to them. It's all about the content/applications. And until Linux gets at least some applications that are superior to the equivalents in Windows, it will never make any inroads into the desktop world.
;)
Hey now! Kpatience is far superior to Windows Solitaire.
I use Netscape 4.7 on Linux with no problems.
The load is faster than Netscape on Windoze. The crashing problems I had were with the glibc version, which appears to be really buggy (perhaps a problem with threads?)
Switching to the libc5 version cleared up a lot.
(I have Caldera 2.2, which uses glibc 2.1)
Incidentally I'm posting from Mozilla M12. Its come a long way, but still has a long way to go. Perhaps there will be a stable version by the end of the year (guessing, don't really know)
As the article points out there is a FREE backup DNS server available at soa.granitecity.com
I understand your point of view, but my own experience is that most people are not stupid. They ignore current licensing terms because they are unenforced and unenforceable.
Well, bear in mind that Slashdot readers, are on average smarter than the general population. I hate to say it but most people are basically ignorant of anything technical and especially software licenses.
I'm not saying that they're stupid, merely uninformed. Ask your average grandmother what a software license is and she'll probably have no clue.
Right now, yes. But if UCITA becomes law then this will no longer be the case.
My guess is that if most (lay) people were to read the software licenses, they would actually think that they are enforceable.
Why would it not be in MS's best interest to flood the market with dirt cheap or free copies of VC++ and development kits for the younguns to play with?
:)
Well, they do offer deeply-discounted educational versions for students. Like $99 or something.
I agree, though. Flood the marketplace with free compilers. They could place restrictions on compiling commercial apps with it and then real developers would by the real thing. Not that I like closed-source software, but I guess M$ has to make money somehow. There software is just too crappy to give away for free.
My feelings about UCITA are that it imposes such horrifying terms on customers that many businesses will turn to open source software to protect themselves.
I wish I could say that were true, but its not. The fact of the matter is, most businesses haven't even read the licensing agreements that exist in mass market software and have no idea the kinds of restrictions that already exist in the EULAs and such, enforceable or not. This law simply legitimatizes these existing gestapo (sp?) restrictions.
If businesses were aware of the restrictions that already exist, they wouldn't buy the software. Either that or they are aware of them and they just don't care. (I find this hard to believe, though). Case in point: the Microsoft EULA restricts reverse engineering, the McAfee license doesn't allow for negative reviews. Yet, there is no shortage of companies that use Microsoft Office or McAfee VirusScan. Companies either don't know about these restrictions or they just don't care.
Most consumers are just simply clueless. They don't read the licenses and don't care. Most ordinary people I talk to think that when they buy a product, they are a PURCHASING a copy of the program, with full rights to do whatever they want with it. What they are really buying is a license, and the UCITA legitimizes this practice.
Depends on what you're into.
Some people are *really* into the "collectible" aspect of CDs -- the jacket and liner notes for some are as valuable as the audio. This is personally not my thing, but somne of my friends think like this.
A pirated CD certainly is worth nothing to a collector.
Hey, just give me a 10" color TV and an RF modulator ..... :) 20 and 40 column text! yippie!
Hehehe....took me a minute to get that one... :)
I'll take the spellchecker over performance any day...
Or you could try Bochs Its slow but it works, even on non-Intel hardware