In my opinion, this is one of the biggest problems with computing today. Most users have no idea how to install/fix anything and are unwilling to learn. We might dismiss them as lazy or stupid, but should they really have to be a system administrator if they just want to get some work done? The physics department at my university had a computer lab full of xterms. All your files and all the software was stored on a central server which was administered by very competant staff. Users could log in using any terminal and see exactly the same thing on the screen. Users never had to apply software upgrades, configure printers, install new software, or anything. The administrators would take care of the central server (including making backups and doing any maintenance work) and everyone was happy. Thanks to some nice X defaults set up by the admins, most people didn't have to touch the scary Unix command line; there was a nice little graphical menu with icons for all the commonly used software (Navigator, Mathematica, IslandWrite, etc.).
That always strikes me as a much better paradigm for most corporate environments, which is arguably where people spend the most time with computers. But everywhere I go, I see de-centralized, poorly maintained, misconfigured workstations. Why do we bother? What was wrong with letting a competant adminisrator manage a central server and letting the users worry about getting their work done instead of babysitting their PCs? ---
Who makes a better idol, RMS or Joe Montana? Who has contributed more to society? How important is that contribution? Who's more likely to return your email?;) ---
From the article: "[...]the argument is over similarities in size, shape and name"
Size: ooooh, they made a small computer. Like that's a novel idea. The Hot Wheels PC (and the corresponding Barbie PC) is similar in size.
Shape: a right-angled box. Even more original. Every computer I've ever owned came in a right-angled box. The NeXT Cube, released 10 years earlier, was just as cubist as either of these. The vents, casing, colour scheme, and connectors are all different. How can Cobalt even begin to argue that the two computers look the same?
Name: Cobalt Qube vs. Apple Cube. No more confusing than Cobalt Qube vs. NeXT Cube. Who should be suing who in that case?
Apple's is a desktop machine; Cobalt's is a server. Apple's runs MacOS; Cobalt's runs Linux. Apple's connects to a monitor, speakers, keyboard, etc. like a normal computer; Cobalt's is meant to be administered through a web interface. The list goes on. How can anyone even take this seriously?
Did anyone else notice the computers in Office Space? They looked like they were running MacOS, but the hardware was generic beige PC and there was lots of "C:\" type stuff displayed. Particularly in the scene where Peter tries to shut down his computer quickly in an (unsuccessful) attempt to escape his boss.
Where on earth did you get that information? Even a quick search turns up more than two links between Canada and the U.S.
For example, UUNet's North American Map shows at least Vancouver, Calgary, Montreal, and Toronto. Toronto on its own has a whole bunch (there are so many lines, it's hard to say how many).
That's only two of the major providers. I'm sure Sprint, Telus, etc. have more as well. I'm really curious about where you got the idea that there were only two links. ---
Actually, there is already a product that will do this. Check out PC Weasel. Their demo on the web site is very cool. Reboot the server and fiddle with the BIOS remotely.
V.92 will never take off. It's like releasing an operating system tied to the x86 architecture which will be obsolete eventually. V.92 is tied to POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service).
Think about that statement for a minute. What's the first OS that springs to mind that's tied to the x86 architecture which will be obsolete eventually? MS-DOS/Windows was pretty popular last time I checked. Plenty of businesses still run on Windows 3.11 and plenty more will be running Win95/98/NT4/2000 for many years to come.
Sure dial-up sucks, but it's what people are used to. Just last week, I had to help out a friend who got a new dial-up account for $25/month. For about $40/month he could have had a cable modem which is faster, more reliable, and easier to set up (click "DHCP"). When I asked him why he didn't just pay the extra $15 or $20 instead of wasting hours trying to get his modem working, he said he didn't need the extra speed.
Why is it that people will choose the crappiest possible solution, even if the superior alternative is almost the same price or even cheaper? Do they feel guilty if they don't use all the benefits, so they choose something with fewer benefits to use? When I can answer that, I will understand why dial-up is still so common-place. (I live in Canada and have been enjoying cable modems for years now.)
Pretty serious. I am venting on the lack of recent innovation. I haven't seen a feature released in any recent OS candidates that has made me mutter, "Wow, thats fraggin' cool".
Come on. The encrypted swap space support of OpenBSD 2.7 definitely has the "Wow, that's fraggin' cool" feel. It also has the "Wow, I have absolutely no need for that" feel, but that's beside the point.
Slashdot Mirror
In my opinion, this is one of the biggest problems with computing today. Most users have no idea how to install/fix anything and are unwilling to learn. We might dismiss them as lazy or stupid, but should they really have to be a system administrator if they just want to get some work done? The physics department at my university had a computer lab full of xterms. All your files and all the software was stored on a central server which was administered by very competant staff. Users could log in using any terminal and see exactly the same thing on the screen. Users never had to apply software upgrades, configure printers, install new software, or anything. The administrators would take care of the central server (including making backups and doing any maintenance work) and everyone was happy. Thanks to some nice X defaults set up by the admins, most people didn't have to touch the scary Unix command line; there was a nice little graphical menu with icons for all the commonly used software (Navigator, Mathematica, IslandWrite, etc.).
That always strikes me as a much better paradigm for most corporate environments, which is arguably where people spend the most time with computers. But everywhere I go, I see de-centralized, poorly maintained, misconfigured workstations. Why do we bother? What was wrong with letting a competant adminisrator manage a central server and letting the users worry about getting their work done instead of babysitting their PCs?
---
As far as I know, nobody has ever been killed in the name of RMS, either. ;)
---
Who makes a better idol, RMS or Joe Montana? Who has contributed more to society? How important is that contribution? ;)
Who's more likely to return your email?
---
From the article:
"[...]the argument is over similarities in size, shape and name"
Size: ooooh, they made a small computer. Like that's a novel idea. The Hot Wheels PC (and the corresponding Barbie PC) is similar in size.
Shape: a right-angled box. Even more original. Every computer I've ever owned came in a right-angled box. The NeXT Cube, released 10 years earlier, was just as cubist as either of these. The vents, casing, colour scheme, and connectors are all different. How can Cobalt even begin to argue that the two computers look the same?
Name: Cobalt Qube vs. Apple Cube. No more confusing than Cobalt Qube vs. NeXT Cube. Who should be suing who in that case?
Apple's is a desktop machine; Cobalt's is a server. Apple's runs MacOS; Cobalt's runs Linux. Apple's connects to a monitor, speakers, keyboard, etc. like a normal computer; Cobalt's is meant to be administered through a web interface. The list goes on. How can anyone even take this seriously?
---
Did anyone else notice the computers in Office Space? They looked like they were running MacOS, but the hardware was generic beige PC and there was lots of "C:\" type stuff displayed. Particularly in the scene where Peter tries to shut down his computer quickly in an (unsuccessful) attempt to escape his boss.
Great movie, though.
---
Where on earth did you get that information? Even a quick search turns up more than two links between Canada and the U.S.
For example, UUNet's North American Map shows at least Vancouver, Calgary, Montreal, and Toronto. Toronto on its own has a whole bunch (there are so many lines, it's hard to say how many).
PSINet's North American Map shows Canada-U.S. links in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, and Montreal.
That's only two of the major providers. I'm sure Sprint, Telus, etc. have more as well. I'm really curious about where you got the idea that there were only two links.
---
Actually, there is already a product that will do this. Check out PC Weasel. Their demo on the web site is very cool. Reboot the server and fiddle with the BIOS remotely.
V.92 will never take off. It's like releasing an operating system tied to the x86 architecture which will be obsolete eventually. V.92 is tied to POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service).
Think about that statement for a minute. What's the first OS that springs to mind that's tied to the x86 architecture which will be obsolete eventually? MS-DOS/Windows was pretty popular last time I checked. Plenty of businesses still run on Windows 3.11 and plenty more will be running Win95/98/NT4/2000 for many years to come.
Sure dial-up sucks, but it's what people are used to. Just last week, I had to help out a friend who got a new dial-up account for $25/month. For about $40/month he could have had a cable modem which is faster, more reliable, and easier to set up (click "DHCP"). When I asked him why he didn't just pay the extra $15 or $20 instead of wasting hours trying to get his modem working, he said he didn't need the extra speed.
Why is it that people will choose the crappiest possible solution, even if the superior alternative is almost the same price or even cheaper? Do they feel guilty if they don't use all the benefits, so they choose something with fewer benefits to use? When I can answer that, I will understand why dial-up is still so common-place. (I live in Canada and have been enjoying cable modems for years now.)
Pretty serious. I am venting on the lack of recent innovation. I haven't seen a feature released in any recent OS candidates that has made me mutter, "Wow, thats fraggin' cool".
Come on. The encrypted swap space support of OpenBSD 2.7 definitely has the "Wow, that's fraggin' cool" feel. It also has the "Wow, I have absolutely no need for that" feel, but that's beside the point.
NSI already has "some kind of insurance against this kind of thing". Two, in fact. They're called CRYPT-PW and PGP.
I still wouldn't use NSI anymore, but they do have better protection than the stupid MAIL-FROM that everyone loves to hate.