I started playing with Linux when it was first uploaded to AOL in late 92', early 93' and I've kept my hand in since then. But I'm not a technical person and never used it as my daily driver.
A couple of years ago the XP install on my very, very old Dell laptop needed to be refreshed, but given the age of the machine and what I wanted from it, I decided to put Ubuntu 10.04 on instead.
I have never looked back. It lets me do what I most need to do - read and write email, work within a web-based content management system, resize and clean up photos, use Twitter - with no fuss, no muss. Oo handles my office needs, and lets me share files with my work with no issues at all. My seven year old (!!) laptop runs fast enough, the software is new enough and I don't have to do anything special to make it work. I never drop to the command line. I never get cryptic error messages. It's arguably the simplest computing experience I've ever had. It gets out of my way better than Windows 7 or the increasingly baroque OS X.
Obviously, I don't use Word or Photoshop or any of the other deal breakers. But I can't believe I'm alone in my computing needs, or in how Linux handles them.
The Fox is a separate channel, licensed as a low power. We'll keep it going after the switch, and we hope for full power status someday. The reason why we're also running it as 7.2 now is to try to get out further than the lp analog signal allows.
My point about the four or five channels stands: one channel you cite is running a weather program, where the on-screen elements don't change that much, and I'm guessing the PBS runs all four channels standard def at least part of the time.
The only reason I mention it is because hi-def destroyed the economics of the conversion for small, and even medium, stations. We're back to offering essentially what we've always had, after spending a few million to get there.
BTW, this is a personal opinion: in general, I think my company would like the switch now rather than later so we can shut off the analog and save some money.
As for old folks, skill levels vary, but I can tell you the folks I've dealt with aren't trying to duck this or have somebody wave a wand and make it happen - they often have the boxes, but no one to help them do basic things like undo coax connections and such, let alone sort out which wires go where.
I'm just saying I think it's the height of arrogance to say to tell a bunch of people, 'Screw you. We gave you warning and the train's leaving now.'
As an industry, we didn't get real serious about the warning part until a few months ago, and until the soft tests, I think no one really grasped how big an issue antennas may be.
I agree that "spectrum is a public good," and that digital is somewhat more efficient - in terms of bandwidth - than analog.
But I disagree with a bunch of other points: I work in a small tv station in upstate New York, and have been one of the people handling the phones when we run 'soft tests.'
It is not true that the problems out there now are with "the select group of people who still use VCR's, 8-Tracks, and still haven't bothered to get a converter box" - as a matter of choice.
The population is almost entirely elderly, rural and with no technical skills. These folks rely on us for their entertainment and information, and are utterly lost when it comes to understanding how to hook up a box, or you do after or what you do when it doesn't work.
It's also important to note that these folks didn't ask to be taken on this ride: broadcasters and government pretty much decided among themselves a decade or so back that this was a good thing.
As we're discovering now, even if our signal reaches the places it always has, in order to not fall off the digital cliff some folks will have to buy antennas.
Right now, they may get our analog signal, with fuzz and noise, using rabbit ears. But digital is an all-or-nothing proposition, which means you may need a real antenna on the roof.
Purely selfishly, the original promise of having four or five channels has not and will not pan out. Why? Because hi-def came along after the initial decision, and it eats up massive amounts of bandwidth.
Example: we run our CBS in high def and our Fox in standard, and even then, on Sundays when there is a football game on both stations we can get digital artifacting because there isn't enough bandwidth to fit everything cleanly.
So yes, digital is better, but no, a delay at this point is not just whining or catering to people who are too lazy to get off their duffs,
I'm an extremely heavy consumer of music - I'd guess the top one percent - and I primarily listen to jazz and classical music, though I also buy a lot of old soul and country.
I've belonged to DRM-free eMusic for four years, and since Amazon started offering mp3s I've switched from cd buying (and iTunes) to Amazon for most of my purchases.
Amazon's mp3s do have what amounts to a weak form of drm: the tracks are watermarked with my identity.
It's trivially beatable, but a bit of a PITA.
So when you combine the PITA factor with the fact that I'm invested in the music industry continuing (after all, I want to continue to be able to buy music easily) there is enough to discourage piracy from someone like me, were I so inclined.
And I suspect that I constitute one of the most important groups of music buyers, the 'long tail' part.
Most piracy, at this point, is aimed squarely at popular music/movies/tv, and that piracy is easily generated from cds or dvds or OTA tv. That's unaffected by DRM.
OTOH, I live in a small town and couldn't just run down to my local Borders and buy the Modern Jazz Quartet's anthology, which I did from Amazon the other night. If I had to contend with DRM, I would have been less likely to buy the item online, and might never have bought it at all, because my mood might have changed the next day, or I might decide the $37 I spent on the mp3s was too much, or whatever.
So in my case, losing DRM was a gain for the industry, and it's in the industry's best interest to continue to encourage me and my fellow heavy consumers.
So: the industry can't win (or even play effectively) when it comes to stopping the piracy of very popular music, and it's a win for the industry if they put up as few roadblocks as possible for people like me.
Or to put it another way: if there is already separate evidence of someone infringing, how long will the RIAA bother with parsing whether or not something is in a shared folder, rather than simply being in the vicinity of infringing - ie, on the same hard drive with a file sharing program?
(Not to say that a file sharing program is proof of anything, in and of itself...)
Well, I are one - I work for a tv station - and my take is different.
Sure, the industry has a high percentage of greed and sloth (though I also know a lot of good, smart people doing honorable work).
That said, reliability is important in tv, more important than it is in much of the digital world, where features and 'interestingness' can drive decisions.
And because of that, tv engineering culture tends to be very, very conservative.
That's a good thing. There's nothing remotely cool about it, (as far as I know, nobody's transmitter is running Ubuntu yet) but it does produce consistent results.
So don't reach for conspiracies where none likely exist - the simplest solution is "tv is opposed right now because the engineers aren't convinced this can be done cleanly, and they're a very finicky bunch."
That doesn't mean tv should win the argument, but the objections should be treated fairly.
You're right, insofar as the bandwidth use is trivial. But as noted elsewhere, the backend costs are not trivial - the two companies in the listing business have to compile, maintain and update schedules from 200+ commercial broadcast stations, public stations and cable-only operations.
They are money making businesses. Frankly, I'm surprised (and delighted) Schedules Direct was able to get a $5 a month rate, let alone the target of $20 a year.
It sems to me that this is a case where MythTV users rely on the kindness of strangers - we're too geeky, too small, to be of importance to the big co.s. That the Trib is willing to set a nominal price for Schedules Direct suggests (to me, at least) that someone in the Trib thinks open source is a good thing.
I'm the news director of a small tv station in upstate New York, and I can back what some other posters have noted.
There is significant (well, as significant as tv gets...) work at the tv station end in compiling and - most of all - updating schedules. I'm guessing it's half of our program director's work week.
There are only a couple of big companies in the schedule game at this point, and my impression is that their money is in keeping everything compiled, updated and orderly - the 'writ large' version of what we do.
So the schedules direct service (which I immediately signed up for, btw) strikes me as a good community solution for keeping a superior dvr, MythTV, from suffering a big setback.
So it's not free as in beer - it does strengthen something that is, and free in other important ways as well.
Scott Atkinson WWNY TV Watertown NY
edit - In some part of the threads on this topic, someone opines that broadcasters don't want this because MythTV lets you easily skip commercials and - evil people that we are - we want to head that off at the pass.
Fergit' it. The issue of commercial skipping is too far removed from what we deal with day to day to influence our decisions, (in other words, we don't see the consequences in the bottom line in any way we can measure)and besides, it's not clear that dvrs lead to large scale commercial skipping.
Absolutely right, and a good, concise take on the subject.
It's the failures, the holes in drm that make it habitable at all, and as it moves toward perfect, the only way to shoehorn it into the original question's conditions is to reduce what constitutes 'legitimate use.'
One of the things I like about Apple is how the last three releases of OS X have been successively faster or more able or both, even on modest equipment.
I've been running one of the final pre-release builds on our PDP-11 and I have to say it feels faster than Panther.
Of course, on such an old machine you wouldn't expect all the glory of Aqua, but I appreciate how Apple designed the OS to degrade gracefully. By default, Tiger comes up on our box at an sh prompt.
Re:Important points of a good manager
on
Geeks in Management?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Maybe I missed this in the other posts, but I think it's far more important to lead than it is to manage.
To me, the most useful 'managing' I do is moving roadblocks out of the way, and making sure everyone has enough of what they need.
My points are:
- keep as few secrets as possible
- tell the truth, even if you're not supposed to
- as another poster noted, defend your people. (Kick their a** in private, if you must).
- praise lavishly, criticize lightly.
- make friends. Yep, you absolutely can't be a 'peer,' but you can be a friend.
- look for the hackers in your midst and cherish them.
I'm the news director of a small upstate New York tv station, and we're starting the move off of tape, away from analog and onto small, light, and (relatively speaking) cheap cameras.
We're headed into year one, and we still have lots of interoperability issues.
Unlike the IT world, where you can buy reasonably priced beige boxes for lots of jobs, everything - and I mean everything - in tv has a proprietary format or twist or connector.
We're starting with SONY PD-150s, we think. The Canons are nice too, but the SONYs seemed the choice of some big stations that use mini dv for special projects.
Also, the head/carriage assemblies come from SONY's pro division, not the consumer end of things.
I also like the Panasonic with 24p.
Lots of folks use SONYs, Canons and a few others for documentaries, but there just isn't much experience out there in using mini-dv as a day-to-day, use it and abuse it format, esp. at the small local/student level.
As for editing and the rest, I'm still thinking. No one ever got fired buying Avid, and their low end solution is attractive, but as a Mac guy I'm partial to FCP or even Final Cut Express.
Whatever you buy, if you're going to play back from server eventually, make sure everything will talk to everything else without transcoding. The transcoding software I've priced is very, very expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
My experience is much different.
I started playing with Linux when it was first uploaded to AOL in late 92', early 93' and I've kept my hand in since then. But I'm not a technical person and never used it as my daily driver.
A couple of years ago the XP install on my very, very old Dell laptop needed to be refreshed, but given the age of the machine and what I wanted from it, I decided to put Ubuntu 10.04 on instead.
I have never looked back. It lets me do what I most need to do - read and write email, work within a web-based content management system, resize and clean up photos, use Twitter - with no fuss, no muss. Oo handles my office needs, and lets me share files with my work with no issues at all. My seven year old (!!) laptop runs fast enough, the software is new enough and I don't have to do anything special to make it work. I never drop to the command line. I never get cryptic error messages. It's arguably the simplest computing experience I've ever had. It gets out of my way better than Windows 7 or the increasingly baroque OS X.
Obviously, I don't use Word or Photoshop or any of the other deal breakers. But I can't believe I'm alone in my computing needs, or in how Linux handles them.
The Fox is a separate channel, licensed as a low power. We'll keep it going after the switch, and we hope for full power status someday. The reason why we're also running it as 7.2 now is to try to get out further than the lp analog signal allows.
My point about the four or five channels stands: one channel you cite is running a weather program, where the on-screen elements don't change that much, and I'm guessing the PBS runs all four channels standard def at least part of the time.
The only reason I mention it is because hi-def destroyed the economics of the conversion for small, and even medium, stations. We're back to offering essentially what we've always had, after spending a few million to get there.
BTW, this is a personal opinion: in general, I think my company would like the switch now rather than later so we can shut off the analog and save some money.
As for old folks, skill levels vary, but I can tell you the folks I've dealt with aren't trying to duck this or have somebody wave a wand and make it happen - they often have the boxes, but no one to help them do basic things like undo coax connections and such, let alone sort out which wires go where.
I'm just saying I think it's the height of arrogance to say to tell a bunch of people, 'Screw you. We gave you warning and the train's leaving now.'
As an industry, we didn't get real serious about the warning part until a few months ago, and until the soft tests, I think no one really grasped how big an issue antennas may be.
s.
I agree that "spectrum is a public good," and that digital is somewhat more efficient - in terms of bandwidth - than analog.
But I disagree with a bunch of other points: I work in a small tv station in upstate New York, and have been one of the people handling the phones when we run 'soft tests.'
It is not true that the problems out there now are with "the select group of people who still use VCR's, 8-Tracks, and still haven't bothered to get a converter box" - as a matter of choice.
The population is almost entirely elderly, rural and with no technical skills. These folks rely on us for their entertainment and information, and are utterly lost when it comes to understanding how to hook up a box, or you do after or what you do when it doesn't work.
It's also important to note that these folks didn't ask to be taken on this ride: broadcasters and government pretty much decided among themselves a decade or so back that this was a good thing.
As we're discovering now, even if our signal reaches the places it always has, in order to not fall off the digital cliff some folks will have to buy antennas.
Right now, they may get our analog signal, with fuzz and noise, using rabbit ears. But digital is an all-or-nothing proposition, which means you may need a real antenna on the roof.
Purely selfishly, the original promise of having four or five channels has not and will not pan out. Why? Because hi-def came along after the initial decision, and it eats up massive amounts of bandwidth.
Example: we run our CBS in high def and our Fox in standard, and even then, on Sundays when there is a football game on both stations we can get digital artifacting because there isn't enough bandwidth to fit everything cleanly.
So yes, digital is better, but no, a delay at this point is not just whining or catering to people who are too lazy to get off their duffs,
Scott Atkinson
Watertown NY
Let's see if this makes sense...
I'm an extremely heavy consumer of music - I'd guess the top one percent - and I primarily listen to jazz and classical music, though I also buy a lot of old soul and country.
I've belonged to DRM-free eMusic for four years, and since Amazon started offering mp3s I've switched from cd buying (and iTunes) to Amazon for most of my purchases.
Amazon's mp3s do have what amounts to a weak form of drm: the tracks are watermarked with my identity.
It's trivially beatable, but a bit of a PITA.
So when you combine the PITA factor with the fact that I'm invested in the music industry continuing (after all, I want to continue to be able to buy music easily) there is enough to discourage piracy from someone like me, were I so inclined.
And I suspect that I constitute one of the most important groups of music buyers, the 'long tail' part.
Most piracy, at this point, is aimed squarely at popular music/movies/tv, and that piracy is easily generated from cds or dvds or OTA tv. That's unaffected by DRM.
OTOH, I live in a small town and couldn't just run down to my local Borders and buy the Modern Jazz Quartet's anthology, which I did from Amazon the other night. If I had to contend with DRM, I would have been less likely to buy the item online, and might never have bought it at all, because my mood might have changed the next day, or I might decide the $37 I spent on the mp3s was too much, or whatever.
So in my case, losing DRM was a gain for the industry, and it's in the industry's best interest to continue to encourage me and my fellow heavy consumers.
So: the industry can't win (or even play effectively) when it comes to stopping the piracy of very popular music, and it's a win for the industry if they put up as few roadblocks as possible for people like me.
Scott A.
Agreed - that's the potential danger here.
Or to put it another way: if there is already separate evidence of someone infringing, how long will the RIAA bother with parsing whether or not something is in a shared folder, rather than simply being in the vicinity of infringing - ie, on the same hard drive with a file sharing program?
(Not to say that a file sharing program is proof of anything, in and of itself...)
Scott A.
Well, I are one - I work for a tv station - and my take is different.
Sure, the industry has a high percentage of greed and sloth (though I also know a lot of good, smart people doing honorable work).
That said, reliability is important in tv, more important than it is in much of the digital world, where features and 'interestingness' can drive decisions.
And because of that, tv engineering culture tends to be very, very conservative.
That's a good thing. There's nothing remotely cool about it, (as far as I know, nobody's transmitter is running Ubuntu yet) but it does produce consistent results.
So don't reach for conspiracies where none likely exist - the simplest solution is "tv is opposed right now because the engineers aren't convinced this can be done cleanly, and they're a very finicky bunch."
That doesn't mean tv should win the argument, but the objections should be treated fairly.
Scott Atkinson
WWNY TV
Watertown NY
You're right, insofar as the bandwidth use is trivial. But as noted elsewhere, the backend costs are not trivial - the two companies in the listing business have to compile, maintain and update schedules from 200+ commercial broadcast stations, public stations and cable-only operations.
They are money making businesses. Frankly, I'm surprised (and delighted) Schedules Direct was able to get a $5 a month rate, let alone the target of $20 a year.
It sems to me that this is a case where MythTV users rely on the kindness of strangers - we're too geeky, too small, to be of importance to the big co.s. That the Trib is willing to set a nominal price for Schedules Direct suggests (to me, at least) that someone in the Trib thinks open source is a good thing.
Scott Atkinson
WWNY TV
Watertown NY
Couldn't agree more.
I'm the news director of a small tv station in upstate New York, and I can back what some other posters have noted.
There is significant (well, as significant as tv gets...) work at the tv station end in compiling and - most of all - updating schedules. I'm guessing it's half of our program director's work week.
There are only a couple of big companies in the schedule game at this point, and my impression is that their money is in keeping everything compiled, updated and orderly - the 'writ large' version of what we do.
So the schedules direct service (which I immediately signed up for, btw) strikes me as a good community solution for keeping a superior dvr, MythTV, from suffering a big setback.
So it's not free as in beer - it does strengthen something that is, and free in other important ways as well.
Scott Atkinson
WWNY TV
Watertown NY
edit - In some part of the threads on this topic, someone opines that broadcasters don't want this because MythTV lets you easily skip commercials and - evil people that we are - we want to head that off at the pass.
Fergit' it. The issue of commercial skipping is too far removed from what we deal with day to day to influence our decisions, (in other words, we don't see the consequences in the bottom line in any way we can measure)and besides, it's not clear that dvrs lead to large scale commercial skipping.
Absolutely right, and a good, concise take on the subject.
It's the failures, the holes in drm that make it habitable at all, and as it moves toward perfect, the only way to shoehorn it into the original question's conditions is to reduce what constitutes 'legitimate use.'
Scott A.
That is, for want of a better word, cool.
One of the things I like about Apple is how the last three releases of OS X have been successively faster or more able or both, even on modest equipment.
s.
I've been running one of the final pre-release builds on our PDP-11 and I have to say it feels faster than Panther.
Of course, on such an old machine you wouldn't expect all the glory of Aqua, but I appreciate how Apple designed the OS to degrade gracefully. By default, Tiger comes up on our box at an sh prompt.
Maybe I missed this in the other posts, but I think it's far more important to lead than it is to manage.
To me, the most useful 'managing' I do is moving roadblocks out of the way, and making sure everyone has enough of what they need.
My points are:
- keep as few secrets as possible
- tell the truth, even if you're not supposed to
- as another poster noted, defend your people. (Kick their a** in private, if you must).
- praise lavishly, criticize lightly.
- make friends. Yep, you absolutely can't be a 'peer,' but you can be a friend.
- look for the hackers in your midst and cherish them.
I'm the news director of a small upstate New York tv station, and we're starting the move off of tape, away from analog and onto small, light, and (relatively speaking) cheap cameras.
We're headed into year one, and we still have lots of interoperability issues.
Unlike the IT world, where you can buy reasonably priced beige boxes for lots of jobs, everything - and I mean everything - in tv has a proprietary format or twist or connector.
We're starting with SONY PD-150s, we think. The Canons are nice too, but the SONYs seemed the choice of some big stations that use mini dv for special projects.
Also, the head/carriage assemblies come from SONY's pro division, not the consumer end of things.
I also like the Panasonic with 24p.
Lots of folks use SONYs, Canons and a few others for documentaries, but there just isn't much experience out there in using mini-dv as a day-to-day, use it and abuse it format, esp. at the small local/student level.
As for editing and the rest, I'm still thinking. No one ever got fired buying Avid, and their low end solution is attractive, but as a Mac guy I'm partial to FCP or even Final Cut Express.
Whatever you buy, if you're going to play back from server eventually, make sure everything will talk to everything else without transcoding. The transcoding software I've priced is very, very expensive.
I thought I knew a little about the history of Mac design, but I have no idea what you refer to. Please write some more on this.