I think Linux has had plenty of time already. As I said, the UI is the biggest problem, but there are others, and most are inherent in the design of Linux. It is geek-friendly, not user-friendly.
That is both good and bad.
I will be surprised and impressed if Linux can deliver on the UI front. I'm not just talking about how it draws fonts and that sort of thing. I mean things like how it handles keyboard shortcuts across applications, and all the little things that make a UI complete, and above all else, *intuitive.*
Then it has to tackle the ease-of-use problems.
-WW
-- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
He made some good points, but others weren't so good.
For instance, he talks about WebTV:
"This puts Microsoft at both a price and platform disadvantage and virtually guarantees we'll soon see server-based office applications on WebTV."
Microsoft owns WebTV.
Doesn't he realize this is the exact reason MS bought WebTV in the first place? Right now, they don't even offer Java on that platform... so why on earth would they want to buy WebTV -- a company that could potentially a huge distributor of an alternate platform (Java)? So they can control it!
It was a fight just to get RealAudio (another MS foe) on WebTV. If MS ever finally decides to let Java onto WebTV, you can bet your sweet bippy that they will have their own java-enabled Office software ready and waiting. Or maybe their version of Java will lack a few things needed to run StarOffice applets...
The second problem I had with Cringely's article is that he makes the same assumption many Linux zealots make: If the software is free, everyone will use it! His last paragraph was almost a joke.
Linux is NOT a threat to Microsoft (or any user-friendly OS maker) at the *consumer level* until it is re-designed from the ground up to be USER-FRIENDLY.
Otherwise, you'll be limited to the sysadmins, networking dudes, geeks, academics, and programmers market. Not that there's anything wrong with that... but I'm sick of hearing about how Linux is going to take over the world. If you believe that, you're not living in the real world. I consider myself OS agnostic... I've used and liked quite a few (Windows, MacOS, Irix, BeOS, etc). This gives me the power to look around without tinting my view with a personal OS bias. I just do not see Linux invading the consumer market until it has a MAJOR overhaul.
This means, for starters: a uniform GUI across all applications, ease of (secure) maintenance, ease of installation, great USB/plug-n-play support, etc. To me, the UI is Linux's biggest detractor, followed by ease of installation/maintenance.
-WW
-- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
First, I'm confused what math scale you're using. I do believe $1507 is cheaper than $1599? Or perhaps I'm reading your heap o' numbers wrong.
But most importantly, you through NT in to the mix. Who says I want that? You added $309 for NT. Subtract $309, and add $0 for Linux if you want a server system, or $69 for BeOS if you want an end-user system.
doink.
-WW
-- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
>why is it that so many people are anti-appleist'?
Why do you need to find a website that explains why? It should be pretty obvious.
There are always people that will hate anything. For example, I hate lots of things; probably even some things that you like.
The next part is whether I'm bored enough to vent about those things in front of you. This guy was, apparantly.
If you want a specific answer on why people might specifically hate Apple, here are a few ideas with which I may or may not agree:
1. Apple makes closed hardware and software. This pisses off Linux folks.
2. They won't share their G3/G4 specs with other OS companies. This pisses off BeOS folks.
3. They bend the truth with numbers (i.e. claiming their G3 was twice as fast as the current intel chip, even though this was for integer performance only). This pisses off x86 folks.
4. They complain about Microsoft, and then turn around and do Microsoft-ish things (as well as except money from MS). This pisses off lots of folks.
5. They rely/relied on their zealots to carry them through the past 5-8 years where they were no longer innovating. Merely claiming Win95 == MacOS '89 (or whatever) is not the same thing as innovating.
I'm sure there's more.
Honestly though, if you can't answer your own question, then perhaps you are not very objective about software companies? I love BeOS, I use Windows, I don't like Linux or Mac, but I can understand why people love and hate all of those products.
-WW
P.S. They're all just tools... let's move on and work.
-- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Of course not many people *USE* any of the current development releases. They are for testing and reporting of bugs. If you don't want to test and report (at least one) bug, don't bother downloading the release. Just wait until someone comes along on slashdot and says, "OK folks, Mozilla 1.0 is available!"
On the other hand, if you want that day to arrive sooner rather than later, you'll go download the latest release and do your duty.
-WW
-- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
"As for a high quality GUI that runs on most platforms... Perl'll do that fine."
1. You need another program installed, like Tk. 2. I said *WEB-BROWSER BASED* GUI. 3. It was just an example of something Perl can't do. There are many other things.
"I think what the origional poster ment is that Perl does 'Wright Once, Run Anywhere' better than Java does."
No, I think the original poster was a Perl zealot that cares more about being a cool Perl haxor than using the right tool for the job. I use and love Perl as well, but I also use and love many other tools... including Java.
-WW
P.S. There's more to Java portability than just "WORA." -- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
"In an announcement that has generated high interest - and more than a bit of skepticism - WEB Technologies (Smyrna, GA) says it has developed a utility that will compress files of greater than 64KB in size to about 1/16th their original length. Furthermore, WEB says its DataFiles/16 program can shrink files it has already compressed." [...] "A week after our preliminary test, WEB showed us the program successfully compressing a file without losing any data. But we have not been able to test this latest beta release ourselves." [...] "WEB, in fact, says that virtually any amount of data can be squeezed to under 1024 bytes by using DataFiles/16 to compress its own output multiple times."
June 1992 Byte, Vol 17 No 6:
[...] According to Earl Bradley, WEB Technologies' vice president of sales and marketing, the compression algorithm used by DataFiles/16 is not subject to the laws of information theory. [...] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
9.3.2 First details, by John Wallace
I called WEB at (404)514-8000 and they sent me some product literature as well as chatting for a few minutes with me on the phone. Their product is called DataFiles/16, and their claims for it are roughly those heard on the net.
According to their flier:
"DataFiles/16 will compress all types of binary files to approximately one-sixteenth of their original size... regardless of the type of file (word processing document, spreadsheet file, image file, executable file, etc.), NO DATA WILL BE LOST by DataFiles/16." (Their capitalizations; 16:1 compression only promised for files >64K bytes in length.)
"Performed on a 386/25 machine, the program can complete a compression/decompression cycle on one megabyte of data in less than thirty seconds"
"The compressed output file created by DataFiles/16 can be used as the input file to subsequent executions of the program. This feature of the utility is known as recursive or iterative compression, and will enable you to compress your data files to a tiny fraction of the original size. In fact, virtually any amount of computer data can be compressed to under 1024 bytes using DataFiles/16 to compress its own output files muliple times. Then, by repeating in reverse the steps taken to perform the recusive compression, all original data can be decompressed to its original form without the loss of a single bit."
Their flier also claims:
"Constant levels of compression across ALL TYPES of FILES" "Convenient, single floppy DATA TRANSPORTATION"
From my telephone conversation, I was assured that this is an actual compression program. Decompression is done by using only the data in the compressed file; there are no hidden or extra files.
9.3.3 More information, by Rafael Ramirez :
Today (Tuesday, 28th) I got a call from Earl Bradley of Web who now says that they have put off releasing a software version of the algorithm because they are close to signing a major contract with a big company to put the algorithm in silicon. He said he could not name the company due to non-disclosure agreements, but that they had run extensive independent tests of their own and verified that the algorithm works. [...]
He said the algorithm is so simple that he doesn't want anybody getting their hands on it and copying it even though he said they have filed a patent on it. [...] Mr. Bradley said the silicon version would hold up much better to patent enforcement and be harder to copy.
He claimed that the algorithm takes up about 4K of code, uses only integer math, and the current software implementation only uses a 65K buffer. He said the silicon version would likely use a parallel version and work in real-time. [...]
9.3.4 No software version
Appeared on BIX, reposted by Bruce Hoult :
tojerry/chaos #673, from abailey, 562 chars, Tue Jun 16 20:40:34 1992 Comment(s). ---------- TITLE: WEB Technology I promised everyone a report when I finally got the poop on WEB's 16:1 data compression. After talking back and forth for a year and being put off for the past month by un-returned phone calls, I finally got hold of Marc Spindler who is their sales manager.
_No_ software product is forth coming, period!
He began talking about hardware they are designing for delivery at the end of the year. [...]
9.3.5 Product cancelled
Posted by John Toebes on Aug 10th, 1992:
[Long story omitted, confirming the reports made above about the original WEB claims.]
10JUL92 - Called to Check Status. Was told that testing had uncovered a new problem where 'four numbers in a matrix were the same value' and that the programmers were off attempting to code a preprocessor to eliminate this rare case. I indicated that he had told me this story before. He told me that the programmers were still working on the problem.
31JUL92 - Final Call to Check Status. Called Earl in the morning and was told that he still had not heard from the programmers. [...] Stated that if they could not resolve the problem then there would probably not be a product.
03AUG92 - Final Call. Earl claims that the programmers are unable to resolve the problem. I asked if this meant that there would not be a product as a result and he said yes.
9.3.6 Byte's final report
Extract from the Nov. 95 issue of Byte, page 42:
"Not suprisingly, the beta version of DataFiles/16 that reporter Russ Schnapp tested didn't work. DataFiles/16 compressed files, but when decompressed, those files bore no resemblance to their originals. WEB said it would send us a version of the program that worked, but we never received it."
"When we attempted to follow up on the story about three months later, the company's phone had been disconnected. Attempts to reach company officers were also unsuccessful. [...]"
-- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Are you confusing network throughput numbers with data storage numbers? I've never seen anyone refer to the amount of RAM on these chips in megabits. The original Rio had 32MB of storage, not 32Mb. So I would fully expect this new storage to be pushing 256MB, not 256Mb (which would just be 32MB).
Uhhh
-WW
-- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
I like the idea of e-books... carrying around 20 of my O'Reilly books in one small, lightweight device is appealing. Trying to read them on a small Palm screen... is not. I wouldn't have any problem with Softbook/Rocketbook/whatever only having one function -- book display -- as long as it does it well and becomes much cheaper. Four hundred dollars for an e-book is ridiculous. I'll consider buying one as soon as they break the $200 price barrier with no strings attached. The stuff the Palm pilot does is great, but I have no use for it, and do not wish to see an e-book attempt to reproduce that functionality. Palm's need to be small as possible without losing their functionality. E-books need to stay as big as a standard book, or they become a chore to read. -WW -- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
The market has spoken? The only thing the "market" has done is cashed in on a well-hyped tech IPO... like dozens or even hundreds of others the past 2 years.
The stock market is rarely a good indicator of real life... especially on IPO's.
-WW
-- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
No, the problem with Linux zealots is that they like to dictate what is important in choosing an OS... perhaps readability *IS* important?
Stability... Yes, I could get that in Linux once I get it running and configured properly (a chore). I can also get it much easier in BeOS and to some extent, Win2K.
Cost Effectiveness... an oft-used requirement mentioned by any purveyor of a free operating system. Granted, Microsoft has come up with some f*cking stupid licensing schemes (WHAT? I have to license *both* processors for SQL Server?!?!). OTOH, I've never had much trouble getting *legal* copies of NT for free, or at least cheap. BeOS costs about the same as a copy of RedHat. At $70-$100, it is a reasonable price for the features it packs.
Performance... I won't speak for windows here, but BeOS is notorious for it's speed, multi-threading, and support for many processors. It needs work on the network speed, but I guess I can wait for the multi-user support upgrade before complaining about that, eh?
You left out "Maintainability"... Linux is not easy to maintain, unless you've been using it or Linux for many years.
It is not user-friendly, and will not be accepted by any number of non-geeks until it is re-written from the ground up to be so.
Not to say Linux doesn't have it's good and great points... I'm just sick of hearing one side all the time.
-WW -- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
I don't think Roblimo understands how the topics are supposed to work. Just because Jesse is a computer "news" writer doesn't mean his article about Linux goes under the news category......
If it's about Linux, it goes under the Linux category. That way, those who are sick of reading about it can exclude it.
-WW
-- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
After all, not too many other OS's can handle humongous drive and file sizes like BeOS. What's the max file size on BeOS again? Something like 16 petabytes or something?
-WW
-- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
P.S. It's in the best interest of slashdot to please as many people as possible... more eyeballs == more ad revenue. This includes people that are not interested in Linux (believe it or not).
-- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
WTF are you talking about? I am offering a suggestion to improve the site. Unlike you...
Why bother offering any options at all to get rid of articles that appear on slashdot? Obviously either Rob is bored, or slashdot readers are requesting this.
Obviously I don't have to read the entire article, but most of the time the entire article appears on the front page anyway. 3 out of the 7 or so articles on the main page were about Linux and thus un-interesting. I'd rather have only the articles that appeal to me show up on that page... which is why the "exclude" feature was created in the first place.
So unless you have something meaninful to add... go away.
-WW
-- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
I love/., but I'm so sick of reading about Linux, I could puke! Therefore, I have selected to exclude Linux articles from the index page... but it doesn't work, because people keep posting Linux related articles under different topics. For example, just today there were three Linux articles showing up... two under "Games" and one under "SGI."
It's pretty simple: If the article is about Linux, it goes under the Linux topic. If the article is about a program or game being written or ported to Linux, it *STILL* goes under the Linux topic!
Why? Because unless you use or like Linux, you don't care that Game "X" being ported to Linux. Or that SGI's Maya software is being written for Linux.
If the people posting articles don't want to take the time to correctly categorize the articles, at least consider providing us more powerful ways to filter... e.g. regex's on the body of the article. Then I can allow all topics, and just do:
!/linux|microsoft/i;
-WW -- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
So what you're saying is losing hundreds of thousands of lives is no problem, because the only thing you have to cleanup afterwords is a hundred thousand dead bodies. But the ten or so people that MIGHT be lost due to reactor problems and cleanup in a contained area is something to be worried about?
-WW
-- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Thanks, I think you're illustrating the main problem I have with Linux -- it's zealot users. (Actually, I have a problem with zealotry from any OS camp, including my beloved BeOS.)
-WW
-- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Linux is based entirely on old unix ideas. The way the kernel is structured, for example. A lot of code in Linux (not the kernel, but the other main parts of the OS) come from GPL'd code from other Unices. On top of that, how old is Linux?
On the other hand, BeOS has POSIX compliancy... and that's it from legacy land. The rest of it is all new tech. I don't think we need to rehash the list of cool features to illustrate that.
-WW
-- Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans? When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Slashdot Mirror
...not a hardware article. Bad topic selection
again?
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
I believe Prodigy was the first to have a
graphical interface?
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
I think Linux has had plenty of time already. As I said, the UI is the biggest problem, but there are others, and most are inherent in the design of Linux. It is geek-friendly, not user-friendly.
That is both good and bad.
I will be surprised and impressed if Linux can deliver on the UI front. I'm not just talking about how it draws fonts and that sort of thing. I mean things like how it handles keyboard shortcuts across applications, and all the little things that make a UI complete, and above all else, *intuitive.*
Then it has to tackle the ease-of-use problems.
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
He made some good points, but others weren't so good.
For instance, he talks about WebTV:
"This puts Microsoft at both a price and platform disadvantage and virtually guarantees we'll soon see server-based office applications on WebTV."
Microsoft owns WebTV.
Doesn't he realize this is the exact reason MS bought WebTV in the first place? Right now, they don't even offer Java on that platform... so why on earth would they want to buy WebTV -- a company that could potentially a huge distributor of an alternate platform (Java)? So they can control it!
It was a fight just to get RealAudio (another MS foe) on WebTV. If MS ever finally decides to let Java onto WebTV, you can bet your sweet bippy that they will have their own java-enabled Office software ready and waiting. Or maybe their version of Java will lack a few things needed to run StarOffice applets...
The second problem I had with Cringely's article is that he makes the same assumption many Linux zealots make: If the software is free, everyone will use it! His last paragraph was almost a joke.
Linux is NOT a threat to Microsoft (or any user-friendly OS maker) at the *consumer level* until it is re-designed from the ground up to be USER-FRIENDLY.
Otherwise, you'll be limited to the sysadmins, networking dudes, geeks, academics, and programmers market. Not that there's anything wrong with that... but I'm sick of hearing about how Linux is going to take over the world. If you believe that, you're not living in the real world. I consider myself OS agnostic... I've used and liked quite a few (Windows, MacOS, Irix, BeOS, etc). This gives me the power to look around without tinting my view with a personal OS bias. I just do not see Linux invading the consumer market until it has a MAJOR overhaul.
This means, for starters: a uniform GUI across all applications, ease of (secure) maintenance, ease of installation, great USB/plug-n-play support, etc. To me, the UI is Linux's biggest detractor, followed by ease of installation/maintenance.
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
First, I'm confused what math scale you're using.
I do believe $1507 is cheaper than $1599? Or
perhaps I'm reading your heap o' numbers wrong.
But most importantly, you through NT in to the
mix. Who says I want that? You added $309 for NT. Subtract $309, and add $0 for Linux if you want
a server system, or $69 for BeOS if you want an
end-user system.
doink.
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
>why is it that so many people are anti-appleist'?
... let's move on and
Why do you need to find a website that explains
why? It should be pretty obvious.
There are always people that will hate anything.
For example, I hate lots of things; probably even
some things that you like.
The next part is whether I'm bored enough to
vent about those things in front of you. This guy
was, apparantly.
If you want a specific answer on why people might
specifically hate Apple, here are a few ideas with
which I may or may not agree:
1. Apple makes closed hardware and software. This pisses off Linux folks.
2. They won't share their G3/G4 specs with other OS companies. This pisses off BeOS folks.
3. They bend the truth with numbers (i.e. claiming
their G3 was twice as fast as the current intel
chip, even though this was for integer performance
only). This pisses off x86 folks.
4. They complain about Microsoft, and then turn
around and do Microsoft-ish things (as well as
except money from MS). This pisses off lots of folks.
5. They rely/relied on their zealots to carry them
through the past 5-8 years where they were no longer
innovating. Merely claiming Win95 == MacOS '89 (or
whatever) is not the same thing as innovating.
I'm sure there's more.
Honestly though, if you can't answer your own
question, then perhaps you are not very objective
about software companies? I love BeOS, I use
Windows, I don't like Linux or Mac, but I can
understand why people love and hate all of those
products.
-WW
P.S. They're all just tools
work.
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Of course not many people *USE* any of the
current development releases. They are for
testing and reporting of bugs. If you don't
want to test and report (at least one) bug,
don't bother downloading the release. Just
wait until someone comes along on slashdot and
says, "OK folks, Mozilla 1.0 is available!"
On the other hand, if you want that day to
arrive sooner rather than later, you'll go
download the latest release and do your duty.
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
"The browser based UI is a Java-Kludge."
Huh?
"As for a high quality GUI that runs on most platforms... Perl'll do that fine."
1. You need another program installed, like Tk.
2. I said *WEB-BROWSER BASED* GUI.
3. It was just an example of something Perl can't
do. There are many other things.
"I think what the origional poster ment is that Perl does 'Wright Once, Run Anywhere' better than Java does."
No, I think the original poster was a Perl zealot
that cares more about being a cool Perl haxor
than using the right tool for the job. I use and
love Perl as well, but I also use and love many
other tools... including Java.
-WW
P.S. There's more to Java portability than just
"WORA."
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
I got this from the comp.compression FAQ:
... regardless
9.3 The WEB 16:1 compressor
9.3.1 What the press says
April 20, 1992 Byte Week Vol 4. No. 25:
"In an announcement that has generated high interest - and more than a bit of skepticism - WEB Technologies
(Smyrna, GA) says it has developed a utility that will compress files of greater than 64KB in size to about 1/16th
their original length. Furthermore, WEB says its DataFiles/16 program can shrink files it has already compressed."
[...]
"A week after our preliminary test, WEB showed us the program successfully compressing a file without losing
any data. But we have not been able to test this latest beta release ourselves."
[...]
"WEB, in fact, says that virtually any amount of data can be squeezed to under 1024 bytes by using DataFiles/16
to compress its own output multiple times."
June 1992 Byte, Vol 17 No 6:
[...] According to Earl Bradley, WEB Technologies' vice president of sales and marketing, the compression
algorithm used by DataFiles/16 is not subject to the laws of information theory. [...]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
9.3.2 First details, by John Wallace
I called WEB at (404)514-8000 and they sent me some product
literature as well as chatting for a few minutes with me on the phone. Their product is called DataFiles/16, and their
claims for it are roughly those heard on the net.
According to their flier:
"DataFiles/16 will compress all types of binary files to approximately one-sixteenth of their original size
of the type of file (word processing document, spreadsheet file, image file,
executable file, etc.), NO DATA WILL BE LOST by DataFiles/16." (Their capitalizations; 16:1 compression only
promised for files >64K bytes in length.)
"Performed on a 386/25 machine, the program can complete a
compression/decompression cycle on one megabyte of data in less than thirty seconds"
"The compressed output file created by DataFiles/16 can be used as the input file to subsequent executions of the
program. This feature of the utility is known as recursive or iterative compression, and will enable you to compress
your data files to a tiny fraction of the original size. In fact, virtually any amount of computer data can be compressed
to under 1024 bytes using DataFiles/16 to compress its own output files muliple times. Then, by repeating in reverse
the steps taken to perform the recusive compression, all original data can be decompressed to its original form
without the loss of a single bit."
Their flier also claims:
"Constant levels of compression across ALL TYPES of FILES" "Convenient, single floppy DATA TRANSPORTATION"
From my telephone conversation, I was assured that this is an
actual compression program. Decompression is done by using only the data in the compressed file; there are no
hidden or extra files.
9.3.3 More information, by Rafael Ramirez :
Today (Tuesday, 28th) I got a call from Earl Bradley of Web
who now says that they have put off releasing a software version of the algorithm because they are close to signing a
major contract with a big company to put the algorithm in silicon. He said he could not name the company due to
non-disclosure agreements, but that they had run extensive independent tests of their own and verified that the
algorithm works. [...]
He said the algorithm is so simple that he doesn't want anybody
getting their hands on it and copying it even though he said they have filed a patent on it. [...] Mr. Bradley said the
silicon version would hold up much better to patent enforcement and be harder to copy.
He claimed that the algorithm takes up about 4K of code, uses only integer math, and the current software
implementation only uses a 65K buffer. He said the silicon version would likely use a parallel version and work in
real-time. [...]
9.3.4 No software version
Appeared on BIX, reposted by Bruce Hoult :
tojerry/chaos #673, from abailey, 562 chars, Tue Jun 16 20:40:34 1992 Comment(s).
----------
TITLE: WEB Technology
I promised everyone a report when I finally got the poop on WEB's 16:1 data compression. After talking back and
forth for a year
and being put off for the past month by un-returned phone calls, I finally got hold of Marc Spindler who is their sales
manager.
_No_ software product is forth coming, period!
He began talking about hardware they are designing for delivery
at the end of the year. [...]
9.3.5 Product cancelled
Posted by John Toebes on Aug 10th, 1992:
[Long story omitted, confirming the reports made above about the original WEB claims.]
10JUL92 - Called to Check Status. Was told that testing had uncovered a new problem where 'four numbers
in a matrix were the same value' and that the programmers were off attempting to code a preprocessor
to eliminate this rare case. I indicated that he had told me this story before. He told me that the
programmers were still working on the problem.
31JUL92 - Final Call to Check Status. Called Earl in the morning and was told that he still had not heard from
the programmers. [...] Stated that if they could not resolve the problem then there would probably not
be a product.
03AUG92 - Final Call. Earl claims that the programmers are unable to resolve the problem. I asked if this
meant that there would not be a product as a result and he said yes.
9.3.6 Byte's final report
Extract from the Nov. 95 issue of Byte, page 42:
"Not suprisingly, the beta version of DataFiles/16 that reporter Russ Schnapp tested didn't work. DataFiles/16
compressed files, but when decompressed, those files bore no resemblance to their originals. WEB said it would
send us a version of the program that worked, but we never received it."
"When we attempted to follow up on the story about three months later, the company's phone had been disconnected.
Attempts to reach company officers were also unsuccessful. [...]"
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Using a URL instead of a cookie makes the paranoid
feel warm and fuzzy. It also makes it harder for
websites to personalize your experience.
"Up with cookies!"
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Are you confusing network throughput numbers with
data storage numbers? I've never seen anyone
refer to the amount of RAM on these chips in
megabits. The original Rio had 32MB of storage,
not 32Mb. So I would fully expect this new storage
to be pushing 256MB, not 256Mb (which would just
be 32MB).
Uhhh
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
I'd rather just use the right tool for the job.
AKA build me a browser-based GUI that works on
most platforms. With Perl.
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
I like the idea of e-books... carrying around 20 of my O'Reilly books in one small, lightweight device is appealing. Trying to read them on a small Palm screen... is not. I wouldn't have any problem with Softbook/Rocketbook/whatever only having one function -- book display -- as long as it does it well and becomes much cheaper. Four hundred dollars for an e-book is ridiculous. I'll consider buying one as soon as they break the $200 price barrier with no strings attached. The stuff the Palm pilot does is great, but I have no use for it, and do not wish to see an e-book attempt to reproduce that functionality. Palm's need to be small as possible without losing their functionality. E-books need to stay as big as a standard book, or they become a chore to read. -WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
What the hell are you smoking?
... especially on IPO's.
The market has spoken? The only thing the "market"
has done is cashed in on a well-hyped tech IPO...
like dozens or even hundreds of others the past
2 years.
The stock market is rarely a good indicator of real life
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
No, the problem with Linux zealots is that they
... Linux is not
like to dictate what is important in choosing an
OS... perhaps readability *IS* important?
Stability... Yes, I could get that in Linux once
I get it running and configured properly (a chore). I can also get it much easier in BeOS and
to some extent, Win2K.
Cost Effectiveness... an oft-used requirement
mentioned by any purveyor of a free operating
system. Granted, Microsoft has come up with some
f*cking stupid licensing schemes (WHAT? I have to
license *both* processors for SQL Server?!?!).
OTOH, I've never had much trouble getting *legal*
copies of NT for free, or at least cheap. BeOS
costs about the same as a copy of RedHat. At $70-$100, it is a reasonable price for the features it packs.
Performance... I won't speak for windows here, but
BeOS is notorious for it's speed, multi-threading,
and support for many processors. It needs work on
the network speed, but I guess I can wait for the
multi-user support upgrade before complaining
about that, eh?
You left out "Maintainability"
easy to maintain, unless you've been using it or
Linux for many years.
It is not user-friendly, and will not be accepted
by any number of non-geeks until it is re-written
from the ground up to be so.
Not to say Linux doesn't have it's good and great
points... I'm just sick of hearing one side all the time.
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
I don't think Roblimo understands how the topics
are supposed to work. Just because Jesse is a
computer "news" writer doesn't mean his article
about Linux goes under the news category......
If it's about Linux, it goes under the Linux
category. That way, those who are sick of reading
about it can exclude it.
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
After all, not too many other OS's can handle
humongous drive and file sizes like BeOS. What's
the max file size on BeOS again? Something like
16 petabytes or something?
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
P.S. It's in the best interest of slashdot to
please as many people as possible... more eyeballs
== more ad revenue. This includes people that are
not interested in Linux (believe it or not).
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Ahhhh let me guess... a Linux zealot.
::shrug::
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
WTF are you talking about? I am offering a
suggestion to improve the site. Unlike you...
Why bother offering any options at all to get
rid of articles that appear on slashdot? Obviously
either Rob is bored, or slashdot readers are
requesting this.
Obviously I don't have to read the entire article,
but most of the time the entire article appears on
the front page anyway. 3 out of the 7 or so
articles on the main page were about Linux and
thus un-interesting. I'd rather have only the
articles that appeal to me show up on that page...
which is why the "exclude" feature was created in
the first place.
So unless you have something meaninful to add...
go away.
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
I love /., but I'm so sick of reading about Linux, ... but ... two under "Games" and one
I could puke! Therefore, I have selected to
exclude Linux articles from the index page
it doesn't work, because people keep posting Linux
related articles under different topics. For
example, just today there were three Linux
articles showing up
under "SGI."
It's pretty simple: If the article is about Linux,
it goes under the Linux topic. If the article is
about a program or game being written or ported
to Linux, it *STILL* goes under the Linux topic!
Why? Because unless you use or like Linux, you
don't care that Game "X" being ported to Linux. Or
that SGI's Maya software is being written for
Linux.
If the people posting articles don't want to take
the time to correctly categorize the articles,
at least consider providing us more powerful ways
to filter... e.g. regex's on the body of the
article. Then I can allow all topics, and just do:
!/linux|microsoft/i;
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Apparantly you have the impression that publishing
material, on the web or in print, is free.
That would be false.
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
So what you're saying is losing hundreds of thousands of lives is no problem, because the
only thing you have to cleanup afterwords is
a hundred thousand dead bodies. But the ten
or so people that MIGHT be lost due to reactor
problems and cleanup in a contained area is
something to be worried about?
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Thanks, I think you're illustrating the main
problem I have with Linux -- it's zealot users.
(Actually, I have a problem with zealotry from
any OS camp, including my beloved BeOS.)
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Ummmm not quite.
Linux is based entirely on old unix ideas. The
way the kernel is structured, for example. A lot
of code in Linux (not the kernel, but the other
main parts of the OS) come from GPL'd code from
other Unices. On top of that, how old is Linux?
On the other hand, BeOS has POSIX compliancy...
and that's it from legacy land. The rest of it
is all new tech. I don't think we need to rehash
the list of cool features to illustrate that.
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring