As soon as the Linux community gets its collective head out of its ass and realizes that Apple IS the standard of nix's be it Linux or Unix.
OS X is the most user-friendly *NIX-based OS available on the desktop today. That doesn't make it the standard -- just look away from the desktop and into embedded and server products.
Linux has had a few years to really get things going and for a while there IBM and Novell had a real head of steam but NO ONE - ang I mean NO ONE in the Linux community seems to be able to continue the momentum.
What are you talking about? Linux development is focused, right now, on addressing performance and stability of the kernel. There are also a lot of OSS projects that target Linux (Gnome, KDE, etc.) that have excellent momentum. Yeah, Linux has lost the "new kid shine"; that's part of what happens when products mature. Linux isn't "losing momentum", it is maturing and finding its niche while settling into a steady rise in market share, especially in the server room.
Listen if Jobs can come up with some sort of super-frickin'-duper translation layer from PowerPC to INTEL why the hell can't Linux to the same with Windows to Linux translation. But translation only as a means for transition. Not as a yeah I run Linux and I'm cool but I have all my comfy Widows apps running with CoderWeavers or VMware... that NOT a reasonable long term strategy... of course who in the Linux community has any sort of long term strategy? Anyone... well... yeah I thought so.
You're comparing emulating hardware instruction sets to emulating an entire OS, its APIs, system calls, etc.. The latter is a significantly larger task. And it's called WINE, by the way, which works remarkably well. Also, you're assuming that the goal of Linux is to make users switch away from Windows. Well, maybe that's the goal for some, but the true goal for most Linux devs (at least, AFAICT) is a stable, fast, Free commodity OS; on those grounds, it is succeeding. BTW, since Linux is OSS, I'm wondering if you've contributed in any way -- financially, with code, with bug reports, with documentation, whatever -- to making Linux what you think it should be. If you haven't, then I'm afraid it is you who has his head up his ass, because you don't get how the OSS dev model works.
Also, you're comparing emulation for the purpose of moving OS X to the newer version of OS X, which runs on different hardware, with emulating Windows in an OS that runs on a wide variety of hardware. It's not a small task, and it's not even that important: Apple gets people to switch from Windows without providing any "translation layer".
You see the Linux community is still fighting over Gnome vs whatever and the latest kernel mutations instead of practical implementations that would actually cause a regular Windows user to switch. Get it!?
No one but fanbois fight over Gnome v. KDE or any other such holy war. The fanbois don't contribute anything anyhow, so it's a waste. Yeah, Linux distros include lots of software that represents various ways to do something. I lost count of all the WM's available (I use BlackBox, for the record). But that represents choice, which is positive for the platform and the community. My Mom likes KDE because the interface is familiar, like using Windows; my wife likes Gnome because, according to her, it works the way she thinks. I like BlackBox because I don't want a Desktop Environment. I'm glad these choices exist, and that the various projects will use ideas from each other to become better at their particular niche goal.
And again, the goal of all this isn't "getting a Windows user to switch" -- it's to make Linux as good as we think we can. The better it gets, then perhaps more Windows users will switch as a result of that; but that isn't the ultimate goal of Linux.
Do you think for a second the public at large really knows about the power of UNIX
You clearly don't get it. There is no cross-checking to be done, because you are never asked for your personal information.
Ok, scneario. Assume that I've never had a library card at library A:
I walk into the library, approach the "cards" desk.
I hand over $50, and the library creates a new numbered account with $50 in it.
I am handed a card with the account number on it.
I walk to the rack and select a book worth less than $50.
I walk to the circulation desk and check out my book; $50 is "frozen" in that numbered account.
A few weeks later, I return my book, and the $50 is "unfrozen" in the account the book was checked out to.
I decide I no longer want my library card, and I surrender it for a $50 cash refund.
At no point in that sequence did the Library need to know who I was. So, DHS could get a dump of everything checked out, but unless they are already suspicious of me and get hold of my account number (e.g. by searching my person), that data is useless. There is no way to associate it to me using only the Library's data.
As to your other "no anonymous reading/living/driving/renting anywhere", two points. One, this evolved not as a result of "Big Brother" but mostly as a result of individuals and corporations wanting to track their customers; someone who wants to sell or rent something of value to you usually wants to know who you are, for obvious reasons. Two, remarkably little of those are actually requirements -- your landlord doesn't have to track who you are, for example. Most do, because it's good business to do so -- it ensures that you get paid. However, it is perfectly possible to find people willing to rent a room, house, or apartment where you pay in cash, in advance. However, you also likely give up your rights should the landlord screw you: after all, you can't prove you ever rented the place.
The same relationship exists for a lot of things. One can be quite anonymous in our society -- but one has to give up some things as well. Everything is a tradeoff. If I don't want the state to register my photo, I don't need to get a driver's license. Of course, I'll then be limited to public transportation, biking, and walking; it's a trade.
The government didn't historically issue IDs and the like for nefarious purposes -- a driver's license was originally issued for one reason: to eliminate the need to arrest people for summary offenses (e.g. speeding), since they know who you are and where you live they can just write a ticket. It's something the citizenry wanted for the sake of convenience. What to watch out for isn't identification, it's the abuse of the system for nefarious ends: I shouldn't need to provide my driver's licence to check out books from a public library, but I appreciate the convenience of not having to get arrested if I go 10mph over on the way to work.
I hear this crap all the time. What's so hard about "double-click the icon labelled 'My Computer'". Yeah, I agree that we shouldn't have to go through that crap, and that it's yet another short-sighted attempt at ill-considered metaphor from MS, but still -- aren't we supposed to be smarter than to get repeatedly bitten by something that's so easy to avoid?
I wouldn't go to a coffee shop that implemented this; and I'm not a freeloader (actually, my employer allows me to expense the stuff I buy while I work remotely, so I buy more than I might otherwise!).
The reason is simple: what I do at the coffee shop is work remotely via VPN. A blocking cycle would completely prevent me from doing that.
On the other hand, timed-ticket systems are relatively easy. My favorite local coffee shop gives an hour of access with purchase, and you can either buy more coffee or buy time directly if you want to extend it. It's implemented as a proxy system: when first you connect, you must open a web browser -- the first page that appears will always be the proxy login, where you enter the code given on your reciept. Your MAC can then access the network (any service) for the next hour.
It seems a reasonable compromise, if one is worried about freeloaders. It also keeps the employees from having to hunt out people that aren't buying; it's self-enforcing.;-)
Re:Increased key weight = more comfort???
on
Blank Keyboard
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Stronger fingers have a tendency to push harder whether it's required or not. Weighting keys like the spacebar, which is pressed with your thumb(s), more heavily means that you don't bottom out the key with as much force. The result is less jarring on your fingers.
The alternative is to train yourself with minimal-force exercises, wherein you learn to press all keys only as hard as you need to. Unforutnately, this can easliy lead to increased tension in the hands, increasing the risk of RSI. Most decent ergo keyboards have distributed the "key weight" somewhat. It is possible, however, to learn to distribute it yourself -- take piano lessons from a good teacher, and you will learn a lot about consistent keystroke force.
Force "Grams" and "factory-tested"explained
on
Blank Keyboard
·
· Score: 2, Informative
In the world of keyboard manufacuturing, the "grams of force" is the "equivalent compression weight" to trigger the key. An 80-gram key would require an 80-gram weight to be set on it to trigger its function. You have to push as hard on the key as an 80-gram weight would in order to type on it.
This is useful because its relatively easy to measure it consistently, meaning it's harder for manufacturers to fabricate results.
Factory testing means a couple things. First, it means that a *sample* of keyboards are put through the full service cycle; all the switches on the keyboard can be hit simultaneously -- it might take a half-day to test a keyboard, but that's OK. It also means that each keyboard is likely tested for each key's function before it is packed for shipping.
"Premium keyswitch technology" is probably just marketing-speak.
A keyboard without letters on it will not make a typist any faster unless they are not a touch-typist. It's also stupid, since keyboard layouts are not completely standard, and since even the best touch-typists ocassionally have bad days and may need to glance at the keyboard.
Can be included in presentation folders and other items that have space for a business card, but not a full CD.
Fit nicely inside a business-card case.
Can be displayed in business-card holders and trade shows
The cons:
Fragile
Can't be used in slot-load CD trays (like PowerBook/iBook)
Unbalanced, so they are loud in many CD drives
Overall, I vastly prefer the 3.5" CD size. 210MB is enough for many things, and they are extremely portable. In a case, the 3.5" CDs fit in nearly anything designed for floppy-disk storage; this makes them ideal for keeping, say, a Debian NetInst disc in the otherwise-useless "floppy pocket" of one's notebook case.;-)
You find it hypocritical? It is right in line with the characteristics of Asperger's. Asperger's is not ADD, and one of the side-effects is the ability to concentrate on one task for a very long period.
I guess you could say Asperger's is the opposite of ADD in some ways: it includes an inability to get distracted, even when one really should be.
Like many diseases of this type Asperger's suffers from an "I have that" syndrome. The criteria for diagnosis are commonly found in society, and people don't realize that one must exhibit the criteria to the extreme to have a diagnosis. Having a long attention span and trouble with social situations don't mean you have Asperger's.
However, an inexplicable drive to complete a focused task (to the point where one skips sleep, meals, and maybe even misses work), coupled with a complete lack of capability to understand social cues despite one's best efforts might be good cause for a diagnosis.
Just because lots of people are geeks and decide "hey, I code for a long time at once and I can't get a girlfriend -- I have Asperger's!" doesn't mean that there aren't real people who are really suffering from a real disorder. Most of them, by the way, are not very public about their illness: people tend to lavish all kinds of social attention on people with disorders of this sort, and that would be a nightmare to anyone with Asperger's.
*sigh*, I've heard this response before. Why does this stuff always come up, and why do people insist on demonstrating a lack of scholarship?
Jehovah's witnesses do *not* have their own 'version' of the bible.
Actually, they do. The "New World Translation" is a biblical translation made by a committee of individuals with direct ties to the JW organization. Much original source material is included, and it is considered a scholarly translation by many; however, the rights to this translation are held exclusively by JWs, and it is their official translation. Additionally, there are many deviations from other well-accepted scholarly translations of the Bible which lead many theologians to suspect some bias. (Note: there is *always* bias in translation).
The name of God is in the bible numerous times, assuming of course that you look at the original texts, and not in the King James and subsequent revisions, which have progressivly fewer instances of God's name in them.
Many translations of the Bible have a name of God in place of the tetragrammaton. JWs are so proud of the fact that their translation uses one of the accepted derivatives, but often know very little about why most older translations do not include a pronuciation of God's name: the correct pronunciation is lost to us, as the Jewish tradition long held that it was too holy to pronounce. The translators of older versions often felt that it was better to merely replace references to the tetragrammaton with GOD or LORD so as to avoid calling God by the wrong name, which is sensible from a theological point of view.
Strangely enough, that name is JEHOVAH.
That is one of many possible alternatives for the tetragrammaton, but is not the only or most-accepted version. Also, most people who have studied Christian history know that to be the common English transliteration of the tetragrammaton. As to the question of why it was removed, one needn't wonder: one only needs to do a spot of research. Hint: it isn't some Church plot to blot out the name of God.
Perhaps Jehovah's Witnesses have aren't so bad, eh? After all at least they know how to address God using His name.
Some would say that they are a bit disrespectful in thinking that they have revealed truth from the Almighty, and scorning those who believe that they don't know the true name of God, and feel -- legitimately -- that it is disrespectful to call God by a name that men have derived from guessing at the meaning of the tetragrammaton.
I any case the most significant difference between the New World translation and the King James, apart from the lack of antiquated language, is the inclusion of God's name where it exists in the original text.
Firstly, this comparison to the KJV is tiring: almost no one uses it anymore, and it's pretty well-acknowledged as an outdated and inaccurate translation of a latin text. Secondly, the KJV isn't in "antiquated" language: it's still modern English. Finally, none of that changes the fact that there are significant scholarly disagreements among Bible scholars regarding choices of translation in the NWT. The NWT translators regularly refuse to participate in ecumenical discussions, which reinforces (but, I'm aware, doesn't prove) the idea that biases in the translation are deliberate.
I really don't much care where logs are kept or what particular format they are in. However, it's important that the man page tells me where the logs are, and clearly documents the format of the log files. What do flags mean? What do particular messages mean?
Also, formatting the logs in such a way that they can be quickly searched with grep or parsed by a simple script is most helpful. One of my favorite loggers does this:
MESG: 2005-05.May-09@09.02.54CDT: Started run WARN: 2005-05.May-09@09.03.17CDT: Couldn't find file 'control.rc', creating ERR!: 2005-05.May-09@09.03.18CDT: Unable to create 'control.rc', terminating MESG: 2005-05.May-09@09.02.54CDT: Completed run. 1 error, 1 warning.
This lets me see everything in chronological order, but I can quickly parse the log. Splitting on ':' will yeild the first two feilds consistently, and the first four chars are *always* the type of log message. So doing something like:
$ egrep '^ERR!: 2005-05.May-09' report.log
Lets me immediately see all the errors for a given day. The key to good logging is, IMO, making sure that the logs can be parsed effectively.
I have several JW friends. What impresses me about their religion is that most of them remain pretty calm and well-reasoned in the face of some pretty crappy things written about them. There's a lot of trash on the 'net about JW's, and most seem to just shrug it off and take it in stride.
Yes, they do have their own version of the bible, but I was impressed to note that much of their literature cites many different translations. They also are actively encouraged to seek out other viewpoints and Bible translations -- they even publish a bible translation that is "their" version with annotations on where major translations differ, and why the translators chose that particular phrasing. In this way, they are really no different than Catholics, who also have "their" version of the bible.
Their worldview might be a little odd, but it isn't like it's a result of just making crap up: there is evidence of a fair amount of scholarly work behind their decisions.
I knew most of the smear on the Internet was bunk the moment I told a JW (now a friend) that I was pagan and they went "Oh! I've always been curious about the neo-pagan movement." We had a great conversation, and at no time did they try to convert me. This seems to be the more common experience (at least for me) than the common representation.
According to popular Internet news/blog site Slashdot (http://slasshdot.org/), well-known companty Symantec has, in an unprecedented act, issued a press release in order to promote its products.
"This is truly a breakthrough in marketing approaches," said a Slashdot employee who asked not to be identified, "never before has a company gone to such lengths to promote a product. Slashdot is proud to break the news of this historic event." While some believe that this was an inevitable extension of current marketing approaches, many more are stunned by the sudden change in tactics.
Mary Weatherspoon, a seasoned marketing consultant, is one of those surprised by Symantec's sudden release. "The whole industry has been turned upside-down. We'd heard inklings of using mass-media to promote products, but none of us had ever thought about treating new products -- especially products that aren't really groundbreaking -- as actual, hand-to-god news," she said.
Slashdot management did not respond to requests for comment before deadline.
Your comment presupposes certain things about religion that are not representative of religion as a whole. For example:
It's sad really that people live their lives in fear of what will happen after death than how they can make the world a better place for everyone while they are alive.
There are many religions that do not promote or teach a fear of death or even believe that something occurs afterwards. Rather, religious beliefs on the matter of death stem from a general human fear of death. When you think of it, fear of death in its basic form is an extention of the self-preservation instinct. The common beliefs of "you don't really die when you're dead" began as comfort: "you don't just die when you're dead, you go to heaven and live with God", or "you come back as another form of life".
They stopped being comforting when religious leaders realized they could manipulate the actions of others by suggesting that these comforting outcomes could be revoked if certain tenets were not observed.
However, though the world's major religions are all guilty of such historical manipulation (for the most part, individual sects may vary), it is not a result of being a religion. Rather, it is a result of those particular religions beings successful because they tap into natural human fears successfully. There are many other religions that believe a person merely passes into nonexistance upon death, and that doing good works for others while alive is the only path to immortality (through rememberance).
I, personally, find that simple comments like your "Religion is the root of all evil" often stem from a rather shallow understanding of religion and personal spirituality (which are separate things, IMO). Religion (and spirituality) are not just for stupid people - much of religion may attract stupid people through the promotion of stupid ideas; but, that doesn't negate the value of all religion for all people.
One of the virtues of the scientific process is open-mindedness. Another is flexibility. I suggest that people who fail to exercise those when considering religion and spirituality are just as foolish as the religious fundamentalists who preach tolerance while damning homosexuals.
but what is a good reason to switch away from WinXP?
As a recent switcher, I can tell you what my motivations were: take 'em or leave 'em, I suppose.
Security
Yeah, WinXP can be made pretty secure. But, OSX has a better security model, a more-secure default install, and sensibly simple security controls. The BSD-base lets you tweak to a great degree, but the frontend lets you manage things well enough. A great example of this is the software installation process: if software needs to put files in sensitive areas, OSX will require you to enter your password -- even if you're already logged into and Administrator-like account. Also, in order to keep your WinXP box virus-free, you have to invest in AntiViral software (costs at least the performance hit); not so on OSX.
Simplicity
I don't mean my-grandma-can-use-it, though that's certainly true. I'm a developer. The simplicity is there at the top level, so you needn't learn great detail abou things you don't care about. The complexity is documented, but abstracted so it disappears until you want it. The elegance of the user experience is fantastic. Compare uninstalling apps under windows (Start, Control Panel, Add/Remove programs, Select, Click Uninstall, follow the wizard, hope the producer spent enough time on the uninstall script) with doing under Mac (drag to trash. At worst case, enter your password to remove unneeded libraries).
Flexibility
The Mac is PowerPC hardware running a BSD-based core. This means I get all the advantages of a Unix core (and CLI) and all the advantages of the best GUI around. I can work most efficiently by moving between those environments depending on the task at hand. Also, OSX gives you most of the advantages of running Unix, but with much superior hardware support (YMMV, I suppose). To cap it off, I can still run Linux, and for little more than the cost of XP Pro, I can get Virtual PC including a copy of XP Pro. Can your PC run Linux, OSX and Windows? Great for testing.
And then, there's the icing: with Mac-on-Linux, I can run OSX under Linux, Windows under Linux (VMWare), or even Windows under OSX (VPC) under Linux (MOL).
Cost
Upgrading WinXP is around $200 per machine. Upgrading OSX is $129 for one box, but $199 for a 5-pack. Do the math. Add to that, the "in-the-box" software with OSX is more valuable than what comes with Windows. Caveat emptor: the first Mac you buy can be a little costly, since you'll have to re-buy some software you might use, like MS-Office. However, the cost for Mac software isn't generally more than PC software, and using fink and DarwinPorts, many free and open-source Unix apps are available as well.
I'm not one who thinks XP is crap. I use it at work, and though my OS of choice has been Linux, XP has been quite serviceable. The more I use OSX, though, the more I realize that Windows seems to have borrowed a lot from Apple's OSen -- and often borrowed it poorly.
And God, I want mail delivery, but giving my address to the post office is just going way over the line!
Strawman. This isn't about giving my address to someone, this is about potentially telling them every detail of what I sent through the mail, including credit card information, private letters to loved ones, potentially sensitive business documents, etc.
The concern isn't that a stack trace might be sent to MS -- it's that they want to have a copy of any document open on one's computer at the time. For now, we can turn it off. But, it pays to keep an eye on things to make sure we can always turn it off. After all, how would you like it if it came out that you had a confidential illness because a medical transcriptionist hit 'Send' after Word crashed while mail-merging your test results?
Expose is probably all one really needs, yes. However,,virtual desktops are nice for development. I find it very convenient to have several documentation and reference windows open on one desktop, the test environment on another, and the actual code view on a third.
This means that it's much easier for me to quickly switch between, say, documentation and code view, while providing a cleaner workspace for each area. Is it necessity? No. It is, however, my taste. The OSX interface is very nice, and very intuitive. However, it is not possible to design the one true UI that works optimally for everyone. Having Desktop Manager as an option for those of us who work better in a "multiple desktop" frame of mind is a service to the community.
Google didn't break any laws, just their own rules. They are punishing their employees with the same sanctions they use against anyone else. I think that's pretty cool, and I wish we (as a community) showed as much consistency when trying corporate criminals and celebrities as Google has shown here.
Drop the car, dude, it's not worth it. Try using a true lightweight tyre, like Pirelli or Michelin.
Hmm, there's a term for that... ah, yes! argumentum ad absurdum. The trade-off between power/resource and comfort is very real. For example, I have an Athlon XP 2200+ with 1GB of RAM -- and I use Fluxbox. My wife uses Gnome on the same box. Why the difference?
She'd rather have a Bently than a Lotus. I am willing to give up some prettiness and some user-friendliness to lower my resource overhead -- this way when I use things like Blender, I get results faster. Speed and control matter more to me than comfort. My wife, however, would rather have a comfortable experience while she browses the web and authors documents and presentations.
On a notebook with 96MB of RAM, I would agree that getting rid of a full DE in trade for a lightweight WM is good advice; it might free up enough resources to allow OOo 2.0 to run nicely.
All that said, OOo is looking a little crufty. I'll withold judgement until post-beta, though, since it runs comparably to Word on my P350 with 256MB I use at work.
creating an virtual environment/sandbox to see how a virus behaves is nothing new.
While I am against software patents, &c., I must remind you that patents can take a very long time to grant. It is possible that Symantec came up with this idea and implemented it before it was obvious, and that they are only being granted the patent now.
If anyone is going to mention Linux's interface choice, don't. The typical "PC user", like it or not, is interested in running Windows, not Linux.
The typical user you speak of buys the PC because it is cheaper than a Mac, and they don't want to mess with it. Thus, they are valuing cost over other concerns. This is in line with my statement. Some PC users are using the PC because it is cheap, other because it is ubiquitous, others because of the flexibility -- choice of GUI is but one example.
And I know there are add-on programs that can change XP's appearance, but they don't come from Microsoft and they don't come with Windows XP.
It doesn't matter if they are included in the box, they are available. That means you have a choice about your interface, and you have more choice about it than on Mac.
If anyone is going to mention Linux's interface choice, don't. The typical "PC user", like it or not, is interested in running Windows, not Linux.
I didn't mention Linux because you can run Linux on the Mac as well. However, the PC supports *BSD, Solaris, and a host of other operating systems. And, if you run Cygwin, you can use many of the Linux wm's. There are entire alternate desktop systems that run under Windows, completely replacing Explorer. That demonstrates the flexibility of the PC.
Mostly, though, you missed the point. Choices of GUI are merely one way that PC's are extremely flexible. Again, the points are that a PC user will value hardware because it is (a)low-cost, AND/OR (b)ubiquitous, AND/OR (c)highly flexible. I choose PC based on the last two criteria, some use just one, but a combination of (a) and (b) is probably most common.
I've yet to see anything good about a Mac. What Mac fans consider good, I consider "limiting". Mac users want a tool; I want a toy. If I wanted a tool, I'd buy a shovel.
I don't know if that's true. Now, I'm no Mac fanboy -- I don't own one, and I won't buy an iPod (no FLAC, no OGG, I don't use iTunes... why would I want to pay that much?). But I'd disagree with the "toy vs. tool" desires of Mac users. What I've found is that people who use Macs want something that will "just work" with relatively little hassle. These are the "no maintenance" people who take their car to the dealer for an oil change; they place convenience and simplicity higher than cost and flexibility.
Now, I see nothing inherently wrong about that. Mac hardware is solid, and the OS is one of the best around (despite my personal distaste for it). But, you pay, and pay, and pay -- and when you're through paying, you have a machine that you can't dig into or modify to the extent you can a PC. Apple is realizing that some people want such flexibility, and they are slowly supplying it (OS/X has a CLI, for Cthulu's sake), but they are being understandably cautious about alienating their core customers.
The dichotomy I see is that both PC and Mac users want a tool/toy -- that is, they want a tool, but something they can play with as well -- but that Mac users value convenience and a pleasant, consistent interface over cost and flexibility, while PC users tend to value low cost (relatively), ubiquity, and high flexibility (e.g. think how many GUI's are available for x86, and how many themes for them, etc.).
True, indeed. But don't discount UML just because it is often misused. The significant advantage of UML is that it is communication: it allows a developer to implement a design (or, indeed, component) in any langauge.
This is advantageous when your job is to design, and pass the implementation off to someone else. Of course, using UML is not and should not be a substitute for the creative design process. I encourage designers to think out thier designs using whatever method works best: flowcharts, psuedocode, beer and pizza, or some combination. However, once the design is done, formalizing it with UML makes certain that everyone can understand it.
Mind-reading leads to poor, expensive maintenance; UML helps keep the mind-reading to a minimum.
Slashdot Mirror
OS X is the most user-friendly *NIX-based OS available on the desktop today. That doesn't make it the standard -- just look away from the desktop and into embedded and server products.
Linux has had a few years to really get things going and for a while there IBM and Novell had a real head of steam but NO ONE - ang I mean NO ONE in the Linux community seems to be able to continue the momentum.
What are you talking about? Linux development is focused, right now, on addressing performance and stability of the kernel. There are also a lot of OSS projects that target Linux (Gnome, KDE, etc.) that have excellent momentum. Yeah, Linux has lost the "new kid shine"; that's part of what happens when products mature. Linux isn't "losing momentum", it is maturing and finding its niche while settling into a steady rise in market share, especially in the server room.
Listen if Jobs can come up with some sort of super-frickin'-duper translation layer from PowerPC to INTEL why the hell can't Linux to the same with Windows to Linux translation. But translation only as a means for transition. Not as a yeah I run Linux and I'm cool but I have all my comfy Widows apps running with CoderWeavers or VMware... that NOT a reasonable long term strategy... of course who in the Linux community has any sort of long term strategy? Anyone... well... yeah I thought so.
You're comparing emulating hardware instruction sets to emulating an entire OS, its APIs, system calls, etc.. The latter is a significantly larger task. And it's called WINE, by the way, which works remarkably well. Also, you're assuming that the goal of Linux is to make users switch away from Windows. Well, maybe that's the goal for some, but the true goal for most Linux devs (at least, AFAICT) is a stable, fast, Free commodity OS; on those grounds, it is succeeding. BTW, since Linux is OSS, I'm wondering if you've contributed in any way -- financially, with code, with bug reports, with documentation, whatever -- to making Linux what you think it should be. If you haven't, then I'm afraid it is you who has his head up his ass, because you don't get how the OSS dev model works.
Also, you're comparing emulation for the purpose of moving OS X to the newer version of OS X, which runs on different hardware, with emulating Windows in an OS that runs on a wide variety of hardware. It's not a small task, and it's not even that important: Apple gets people to switch from Windows without providing any "translation layer".
You see the Linux community is still fighting over Gnome vs whatever and the latest kernel mutations instead of practical implementations that would actually cause a regular Windows user to switch. Get it!?
No one but fanbois fight over Gnome v. KDE or any other such holy war. The fanbois don't contribute anything anyhow, so it's a waste. Yeah, Linux distros include lots of software that represents various ways to do something. I lost count of all the WM's available (I use BlackBox, for the record). But that represents choice, which is positive for the platform and the community. My Mom likes KDE because the interface is familiar, like using Windows; my wife likes Gnome because, according to her, it works the way she thinks. I like BlackBox because I don't want a Desktop Environment. I'm glad these choices exist, and that the various projects will use ideas from each other to become better at their particular niche goal.
And again, the goal of all this isn't "getting a Windows user to switch" -- it's to make Linux as good as we think we can. The better it gets, then perhaps more Windows users will switch as a result of that; but that isn't the ultimate goal of Linux.
Do you think for a second the public at large really knows about the power of UNIX
Ok, scneario. Assume that I've never had a library card at library A:
- I walk into the library, approach the "cards" desk.
- I hand over $50, and the library creates a new numbered account with $50 in it.
- I am handed a card with the account number on it.
- I walk to the rack and select a book worth less than $50.
- I walk to the circulation desk and check out my book; $50 is "frozen" in that numbered account.
- A few weeks later, I return my book, and the $50 is "unfrozen" in the account the book was checked out to.
- I decide I no longer want my library card, and I surrender it for a $50 cash refund.
At no point in that sequence did the Library need to know who I was. So, DHS could get a dump of everything checked out, but unless they are already suspicious of me and get hold of my account number (e.g. by searching my person), that data is useless. There is no way to associate it to me using only the Library's data.As to your other "no anonymous reading/living/driving/renting anywhere", two points. One, this evolved not as a result of "Big Brother" but mostly as a result of individuals and corporations wanting to track their customers; someone who wants to sell or rent something of value to you usually wants to know who you are, for obvious reasons. Two, remarkably little of those are actually requirements -- your landlord doesn't have to track who you are, for example. Most do, because it's good business to do so -- it ensures that you get paid. However, it is perfectly possible to find people willing to rent a room, house, or apartment where you pay in cash, in advance. However, you also likely give up your rights should the landlord screw you: after all, you can't prove you ever rented the place.
The same relationship exists for a lot of things. One can be quite anonymous in our society -- but one has to give up some things as well. Everything is a tradeoff. If I don't want the state to register my photo, I don't need to get a driver's license. Of course, I'll then be limited to public transportation, biking, and walking; it's a trade.
The government didn't historically issue IDs and the like for nefarious purposes -- a driver's license was originally issued for one reason: to eliminate the need to arrest people for summary offenses (e.g. speeding), since they know who you are and where you live they can just write a ticket. It's something the citizenry wanted for the sake of convenience. What to watch out for isn't identification, it's the abuse of the system for nefarious ends: I shouldn't need to provide my driver's licence to check out books from a public library, but I appreciate the convenience of not having to get arrested if I go 10mph over on the way to work.
I hear this crap all the time. What's so hard about "double-click the icon labelled 'My Computer'". Yeah, I agree that we shouldn't have to go through that crap, and that it's yet another short-sighted attempt at ill-considered metaphor from MS, but still -- aren't we supposed to be smarter than to get repeatedly bitten by something that's so easy to avoid?
I wouldn't go to a coffee shop that implemented this; and I'm not a freeloader (actually, my employer allows me to expense the stuff I buy while I work remotely, so I buy more than I might otherwise!).
;-)
The reason is simple: what I do at the coffee shop is work remotely via VPN. A blocking cycle would completely prevent me from doing that.
On the other hand, timed-ticket systems are relatively easy. My favorite local coffee shop gives an hour of access with purchase, and you can either buy more coffee or buy time directly if you want to extend it. It's implemented as a proxy system: when first you connect, you must open a web browser -- the first page that appears will always be the proxy login, where you enter the code given on your reciept. Your MAC can then access the network (any service) for the next hour.
It seems a reasonable compromise, if one is worried about freeloaders. It also keeps the employees from having to hunt out people that aren't buying; it's self-enforcing.
Stronger fingers have a tendency to push harder whether it's required or not. Weighting keys like the spacebar, which is pressed with your thumb(s), more heavily means that you don't bottom out the key with as much force. The result is less jarring on your fingers.
The alternative is to train yourself with minimal-force exercises, wherein you learn to press all keys only as hard as you need to. Unforutnately, this can easliy lead to increased tension in the hands, increasing the risk of RSI. Most decent ergo keyboards have distributed the "key weight" somewhat. It is possible, however, to learn to distribute it yourself -- take piano lessons from a good teacher, and you will learn a lot about consistent keystroke force.
In the world of keyboard manufacuturing, the "grams of force" is the "equivalent compression weight" to trigger the key. An 80-gram key would require an 80-gram weight to be set on it to trigger its function. You have to push as hard on the key as an 80-gram weight would in order to type on it.
This is useful because its relatively easy to measure it consistently, meaning it's harder for manufacturers to fabricate results.
Factory testing means a couple things. First, it means that a *sample* of keyboards are put through the full service cycle; all the switches on the keyboard can be hit simultaneously -- it might take a half-day to test a keyboard, but that's OK. It also means that each keyboard is likely tested for each key's function before it is packed for shipping.
"Premium keyswitch technology" is probably just marketing-speak.
A keyboard without letters on it will not make a typist any faster unless they are not a touch-typist. It's also stupid, since keyboard layouts are not completely standard, and since even the best touch-typists ocassionally have bad days and may need to glance at the keyboard.
The pros:
- Can be included in presentation folders and other items that have space for a business card, but not a full CD.
- Fit nicely inside a business-card case.
- Can be displayed in business-card holders and trade shows
The cons:- Fragile
- Can't be used in slot-load CD trays (like PowerBook/iBook)
- Unbalanced, so they are loud in many CD drives
Overall, I vastly prefer the 3.5" CD size. 210MB is enough for many things, and they are extremely portable. In a case, the 3.5" CDs fit in nearly anything designed for floppy-disk storage; this makes them ideal for keeping, say, a Debian NetInst disc in the otherwise-useless "floppy pocket" of one's notebook case.I guess you could say Asperger's is the opposite of ADD in some ways: it includes an inability to get distracted, even when one really should be.
Like many diseases of this type Asperger's suffers from an "I have that" syndrome. The criteria for diagnosis are commonly found in society, and people don't realize that one must exhibit the criteria to the extreme to have a diagnosis. Having a long attention span and trouble with social situations don't mean you have Asperger's.
However, an inexplicable drive to complete a focused task (to the point where one skips sleep, meals, and maybe even misses work), coupled with a complete lack of capability to understand social cues despite one's best efforts might be good cause for a diagnosis.
Just because lots of people are geeks and decide "hey, I code for a long time at once and I can't get a girlfriend -- I have Asperger's!" doesn't mean that there aren't real people who are really suffering from a real disorder. Most of them, by the way, are not very public about their illness: people tend to lavish all kinds of social attention on people with disorders of this sort, and that would be a nightmare to anyone with Asperger's.
Actually, they do. The "New World Translation" is a biblical translation made by a committee of individuals with direct ties to the JW organization. Much original source material is included, and it is considered a scholarly translation by many; however, the rights to this translation are held exclusively by JWs, and it is their official translation. Additionally, there are many deviations from other well-accepted scholarly translations of the Bible which lead many theologians to suspect some bias. (Note: there is *always* bias in translation).
Many translations of the Bible have a name of God in place of the tetragrammaton. JWs are so proud of the fact that their translation uses one of the accepted derivatives, but often know very little about why most older translations do not include a pronuciation of God's name: the correct pronunciation is lost to us, as the Jewish tradition long held that it was too holy to pronounce. The translators of older versions often felt that it was better to merely replace references to the tetragrammaton with GOD or LORD so as to avoid calling God by the wrong name, which is sensible from a theological point of view.
That is one of many possible alternatives for the tetragrammaton, but is not the only or most-accepted version. Also, most people who have studied Christian history know that to be the common English transliteration of the tetragrammaton. As to the question of why it was removed, one needn't wonder: one only needs to do a spot of research. Hint: it isn't some Church plot to blot out the name of God.
Some would say that they are a bit disrespectful in thinking that they have revealed truth from the Almighty, and scorning those who believe that they don't know the true name of God, and feel -- legitimately -- that it is disrespectful to call God by a name that men have derived from guessing at the meaning of the tetragrammaton.
Firstly, this comparison to the KJV is tiring: almost no one uses it anymore, and it's pretty well-acknowledged as an outdated and inaccurate translation of a latin text. Secondly, the KJV isn't in "antiquated" language: it's still modern English. Finally, none of that changes the fact that there are significant scholarly disagreements among Bible scholars regarding choices of translation in the NWT. The NWT translators regularly refuse to participate in ecumenical discussions, which reinforces (but, I'm aware, doesn't prove) the idea that biases in the translation are deliberate.
I really don't much care where logs are kept or what particular format they are in. However, it's important that the man page tells me where the logs are, and clearly documents the format of the log files. What do flags mean? What do particular messages mean?
Also, formatting the logs in such a way that they can be quickly searched with grep or parsed by a simple script is most helpful. One of my favorite loggers does this:
This lets me see everything in chronological order, but I can quickly parse the log. Splitting on ':' will yeild the first two feilds consistently, and the first four chars are *always* the type of log message. So doing something like:
Lets me immediately see all the errors for a given day. The key to good logging is, IMO, making sure that the logs can be parsed effectively.
Yes, they do have their own version of the bible, but I was impressed to note that much of their literature cites many different translations. They also are actively encouraged to seek out other viewpoints and Bible translations -- they even publish a bible translation that is "their" version with annotations on where major translations differ, and why the translators chose that particular phrasing. In this way, they are really no different than Catholics, who also have "their" version of the bible.
Their worldview might be a little odd, but it isn't like it's a result of just making crap up: there is evidence of a fair amount of scholarly work behind their decisions.
I knew most of the smear on the Internet was bunk the moment I told a JW (now a friend) that I was pagan and they went "Oh! I've always been curious about the neo-pagan movement." We had a great conversation, and at no time did they try to convert me. This seems to be the more common experience (at least for me) than the common representation.
According to popular Internet news/blog site Slashdot (http://slasshdot.org/), well-known companty Symantec has, in an unprecedented act, issued a press release in order to promote its products.
"This is truly a breakthrough in marketing approaches," said a Slashdot employee who asked not to be identified, "never before has a company gone to such lengths to promote a product. Slashdot is proud to break the news of this historic event." While some believe that this was an inevitable extension of current marketing approaches, many more are stunned by the sudden change in tactics.
Mary Weatherspoon, a seasoned marketing consultant, is one of those surprised by Symantec's sudden release. "The whole industry has been turned upside-down. We'd heard inklings of using mass-media to promote products, but none of us had ever thought about treating new products -- especially products that aren't really groundbreaking -- as actual, hand-to-god news," she said.
Slashdot management did not respond to requests for comment before deadline.
They stopped being comforting when religious leaders realized they could manipulate the actions of others by suggesting that these comforting outcomes could be revoked if certain tenets were not observed.
However, though the world's major religions are all guilty of such historical manipulation (for the most part, individual sects may vary), it is not a result of being a religion. Rather, it is a result of those particular religions beings successful because they tap into natural human fears successfully. There are many other religions that believe a person merely passes into nonexistance upon death, and that doing good works for others while alive is the only path to immortality (through rememberance).
I, personally, find that simple comments like your "Religion is the root of all evil" often stem from a rather shallow understanding of religion and personal spirituality (which are separate things, IMO). Religion (and spirituality) are not just for stupid people - much of religion may attract stupid people through the promotion of stupid ideas; but, that doesn't negate the value of all religion for all people.
One of the virtues of the scientific process is open-mindedness. Another is flexibility. I suggest that people who fail to exercise those when considering religion and spirituality are just as foolish as the religious fundamentalists who preach tolerance while damning homosexuals.
As a recent switcher, I can tell you what my motivations were: take 'em or leave 'em, I suppose.
Yeah, WinXP can be made pretty secure. But, OSX has a better security model, a more-secure default install, and sensibly simple security controls. The BSD-base lets you tweak to a great degree, but the frontend lets you manage things well enough. A great example of this is the software installation process: if software needs to put files in sensitive areas, OSX will require you to enter your password -- even if you're already logged into and Administrator-like account. Also, in order to keep your WinXP box virus-free, you have to invest in AntiViral software (costs at least the performance hit); not so on OSX.
I don't mean my-grandma-can-use-it, though that's certainly true. I'm a developer. The simplicity is there at the top level, so you needn't learn great detail abou things you don't care about. The complexity is documented, but abstracted so it disappears until you want it. The elegance of the user experience is fantastic. Compare uninstalling apps under windows (Start, Control Panel, Add/Remove programs, Select, Click Uninstall, follow the wizard, hope the producer spent enough time on the uninstall script) with doing under Mac (drag to trash. At worst case, enter your password to remove unneeded libraries).
The Mac is PowerPC hardware running a BSD-based core. This means I get all the advantages of a Unix core (and CLI) and all the advantages of the best GUI around. I can work most efficiently by moving between those environments depending on the task at hand. Also, OSX gives you most of the advantages of running Unix, but with much superior hardware support (YMMV, I suppose). To cap it off, I can still run Linux, and for little more than the cost of XP Pro, I can get Virtual PC including a copy of XP Pro. Can your PC run Linux, OSX and Windows? Great for testing.
And then, there's the icing: with Mac-on-Linux, I can run OSX under Linux, Windows under Linux (VMWare), or even Windows under OSX (VPC) under Linux (MOL).
Upgrading WinXP is around $200 per machine. Upgrading OSX is $129 for one box, but $199 for a 5-pack. Do the math. Add to that, the "in-the-box" software with OSX is more valuable than what comes with Windows. Caveat emptor: the first Mac you buy can be a little costly, since you'll have to re-buy some software you might use, like MS-Office. However, the cost for Mac software isn't generally more than PC software, and using fink and DarwinPorts, many free and open-source Unix apps are available as well.
I'm not one who thinks XP is crap. I use it at work, and though my OS of choice has been Linux, XP has been quite serviceable. The more I use OSX, though, the more I realize that Windows seems to have borrowed a lot from Apple's OSen -- and often borrowed it poorly.
Strawman. This isn't about giving my address to someone, this is about potentially telling them every detail of what I sent through the mail, including credit card information, private letters to loved ones, potentially sensitive business documents, etc.
The concern isn't that a stack trace might be sent to MS -- it's that they want to have a copy of any document open on one's computer at the time. For now, we can turn it off. But, it pays to keep an eye on things to make sure we can always turn it off. After all, how would you like it if it came out that you had a confidential illness because a medical transcriptionist hit 'Send' after Word crashed while mail-merging your test results?
Expose is probably all one really needs, yes. However,,virtual desktops are nice for development. I find it very convenient to have several documentation and reference windows open on one desktop, the test environment on another, and the actual code view on a third.
This means that it's much easier for me to quickly switch between, say, documentation and code view, while providing a cleaner workspace for each area. Is it necessity? No. It is, however, my taste. The OSX interface is very nice, and very intuitive. However, it is not possible to design the one true UI that works optimally for everyone. Having Desktop Manager as an option for those of us who work better in a "multiple desktop" frame of mind is a service to the community.
Google didn't break any laws, just their own rules. They are punishing their employees with the same sanctions they use against anyone else. I think that's pretty cool, and I wish we (as a community) showed as much consistency when trying corporate criminals and celebrities as Google has shown here.
Hmm, there's a term for that... ah, yes! argumentum ad absurdum. The trade-off between power/resource and comfort is very real. For example, I have an Athlon XP 2200+ with 1GB of RAM -- and I use Fluxbox. My wife uses Gnome on the same box. Why the difference?
She'd rather have a Bently than a Lotus. I am willing to give up some prettiness and some user-friendliness to lower my resource overhead -- this way when I use things like Blender, I get results faster. Speed and control matter more to me than comfort. My wife, however, would rather have a comfortable experience while she browses the web and authors documents and presentations.
On a notebook with 96MB of RAM, I would agree that getting rid of a full DE in trade for a lightweight WM is good advice; it might free up enough resources to allow OOo 2.0 to run nicely.
All that said, OOo is looking a little crufty. I'll withold judgement until post-beta, though, since it runs comparably to Word on my P350 with 256MB I use at work.
Then again, people you know aren't all that random, so we're probably pretty safe. ;-)
While I am against software patents, &c., I must remind you that patents can take a very long time to grant. It is possible that Symantec came up with this idea and implemented it before it was obvious, and that they are only being granted the patent now.
The typical user you speak of buys the PC because it is cheaper than a Mac, and they don't want to mess with it. Thus, they are valuing cost over other concerns. This is in line with my statement. Some PC users are using the PC because it is cheap, other because it is ubiquitous, others because of the flexibility -- choice of GUI is but one example.
And I know there are add-on programs that can change XP's appearance, but they don't come from Microsoft and they don't come with Windows XP.
It doesn't matter if they are included in the box, they are available. That means you have a choice about your interface, and you have more choice about it than on Mac.
If anyone is going to mention Linux's interface choice, don't. The typical "PC user", like it or not, is interested in running Windows, not Linux.
I didn't mention Linux because you can run Linux on the Mac as well. However, the PC supports *BSD, Solaris, and a host of other operating systems. And, if you run Cygwin, you can use many of the Linux wm's. There are entire alternate desktop systems that run under Windows, completely replacing Explorer. That demonstrates the flexibility of the PC.
Mostly, though, you missed the point. Choices of GUI are merely one way that PC's are extremely flexible. Again, the points are that a PC user will value hardware because it is (a)low-cost, AND/OR (b)ubiquitous, AND/OR (c)highly flexible. I choose PC based on the last two criteria, some use just one, but a combination of (a) and (b) is probably most common.
I don't know if that's true. Now, I'm no Mac fanboy -- I don't own one, and I won't buy an iPod (no FLAC, no OGG, I don't use iTunes... why would I want to pay that much?). But I'd disagree with the "toy vs. tool" desires of Mac users. What I've found is that people who use Macs want something that will "just work" with relatively little hassle. These are the "no maintenance" people who take their car to the dealer for an oil change; they place convenience and simplicity higher than cost and flexibility.
Now, I see nothing inherently wrong about that. Mac hardware is solid, and the OS is one of the best around (despite my personal distaste for it). But, you pay, and pay, and pay -- and when you're through paying, you have a machine that you can't dig into or modify to the extent you can a PC. Apple is realizing that some people want such flexibility, and they are slowly supplying it (OS/X has a CLI, for Cthulu's sake), but they are being understandably cautious about alienating their core customers.
The dichotomy I see is that both PC and Mac users want a tool/toy -- that is, they want a tool, but something they can play with as well -- but that Mac users value convenience and a pleasant, consistent interface over cost and flexibility, while PC users tend to value low cost (relatively), ubiquity, and high flexibility (e.g. think how many GUI's are available for x86, and how many themes for them, etc.).
This is advantageous when your job is to design, and pass the implementation off to someone else. Of course, using UML is not and should not be a substitute for the creative design process. I encourage designers to think out thier designs using whatever method works best: flowcharts, psuedocode, beer and pizza, or some combination. However, once the design is done, formalizing it with UML makes certain that everyone can understand it.
Mind-reading leads to poor, expensive maintenance; UML helps keep the mind-reading to a minimum.
Nah, pretty standard really...