Aside from the standard time-is-money argument, why don't developers use an operating system's native environments for their software, much in the way Microsoft will do for Office v. X for Mac? One could counter this by saying that Microsft almost never uses the native GUI elements of Windows and always makes proprietary versions, like for Office, but the functionality of that proprietary ToolKit meets and exceeds the accessibility of Windows. It's been my personal and I guess limited experience that programs that don't use regular GUI elements (i.e. Limewire) generally suck.
Well what you're saying is basically like, "Why don't Americans like Latin? It's so much more succinct, why use all those words for nothing..." Most Americans don't know Latin! If a user grew up with Windows, he would more likely be used to the mouse and GUI and not even know of the shell. You have to keep in mind that these people might be slower on the shell because they don't know how to use it. Thus, that's an unfair comparison in speed.
(oh btw, i'm not a gui zealot. i like the cli sometimes. just trying to make friendly debate over ui issues...)
The advantage to point-n-click is that the options are most likely laid out for you in the open, thus not requiring the memorization of commands. With a CLI, you have to know exactly what you want do to. Some people don't have the convenience of time, memorizing and learning the syntax of the shell. For a GUI, there is no syntax. It clearly shows (well it should...) what you can and cannot do, as opposed to a shell which leaves you commandless until you type something. You sound as if a GUI is capable of nothing. Maybe that's because you've used a CLI for so long, you don't know all of the little tricks of a GUI. You know, an OS like Windows has nearly every menu accessible via keyboard so don't complain that the mouse is the only option.
As for the DOS thing... If a program can handle wildcards, you can just do
program *.x
just like UNIX, since DOS is a UNIX copy cat.
I think a GUI is also good for people who like to visualize their work or make quick and simple decisions. Let's say I wanted to delete all of the directories that start with a, I could do that in UNIX very fast. With a GUI, I'd probably have to hunt and peck. Although there *is* a file find command in Windows, so I can use that and wildcards, press CTRL A to select everything in the window, and be off with it with delete. Another thing I like about an explorer type interface is picking and choosing what files I want to manipulate as opposed to typing them out. I know there's tab completition, but sometimes the file names are too long or too similar to use a CLI. Again, a CLI will show nothing until told while a GUI will lay out nearly everything needed.
Again, its just a matter of whats appropriate and who knows what best. You're making the secretary sound completely ignorant of the keyboard while accessing the menus and that's not fair. By the way, I don't recall cashier's boxes ever having CTRL keys (unless they're PC boxen turned cash registers).
So please get off your high horse and realize that these are different tools for different purposes. As fast as a CLI can be and as old as it is, don't make it the end all be all of UI. Have you even considered an audio interface? That may be a viable possibility for the masses in the near future.
I agree with you, but you should revise the title. It isn't a matter of GUIs never being efficient, since it depends more on how familiar an interface is. Keep in mind that keyboard accessible GUIs can operate much faster with a keyboard than with a mouse. Unlike Apple, Microsoft has done a great job making nearly every aspect of the operating system accessible via keyboard. Once you memorize all of the shortcuts and such, its just as good and as cryptic as a CLI, sometimes.
I know the above was refering to software development, but I think an environment like AutoCAD is extremely cool. It welcomes people who like point and click, and yet a lump sum of the features interact with the user from the command line as well. I wonder if that kind of setup can be applied elsewhere...
By the way, my experience with CLI vs GUI has been... GUI does complex tasks faster than a CLI can, but for the basics, CLI can be used at a blazing speed for fast typists. The point-n-click strategy isn't cool when speed is a priority... But again, a hybrid is truly interesting.
i know it seems extremely out of place to post this here... but you were forewarned.
anyway, using winMe and ie6, clicking on the mozilla bug link on the front page reloads the slashdot front page with the form info tagged on to the end. has anyone else encountered this?
bug #96747 -- http://slashdot.org/?id=96747
this happens even though the link on the page points explicitly to the mozilla domain. clicking on the same link on the comments page loads the correct mozilla page
Jagged indicates rough, and thats just one of many minute details that visual designers labor over. If you're talking about fonts on screen, as in the terminal, then fine, anti-aliased fonts aren't a big deal. But in a medium resolution environments, anti-aliased fonts will feel different from black and white bitmappy fonts.
Well, at smaller resolutions, fonts don't need to be anti-aliased. Moreover, they shouldn't be anti-aliased, as there is a limited amount of pixels to work with. It's like rendered polygons versus sprites in games. Sprites will always rule in low end systems because they are hand-tweaked. On higher res environments, rendered (anti-aliased) graphics are prettier and scalable and thus better.
I think I'd sum it up as Microsoft is *not* bad, but Microsoft is *evil*. There's a big difference. Windows has to be *the* desktop operating system of, umm, "choice" and Office totally whips any other office suite... That means they have good software. It isn't bad. Yet their tactics are underhanded. That's evil. See?
It's not just a modified UI... It's a skinnable one, so that opens up path that UI developers can take. And since I'm assuming that you've never used it before, or at least more than just looking at it, you would know it makes subtle yet effective changes in responsiveness and usability, key factors in the operation of any device regardless of operating system. So, yeah, pretty colors go a long way, although (i'm guessing) most/.ers wouldn't know that since they're power users anyway...
Windows XP doesn't require an upgrade to the latest hardware. The people it tends to hurt are those that bought computers with Windows 95 on them. They're old. Windows 95 is old. Sure Linux or what have you can run on older hardware forever, but Windows is a commercial beast that needs attention, and its just about time for those old Windows 95 to revive their "computing experience" and upgrade.
Again, if you actually used Windows XP, you would know that is isn't all that useless. Things like System Restore do wonders in undoing the number of headaches caused by some Windows applications... It's automagical.
You know, there are always fans of any operating system, so the fact that there are Windows fans shouldn't be of any surpised. *gasp*/. is populated by Linux zealots!
As far as the stability of 9x vs NT... I don't know. I'm using XP right now, and it crashes sometimes (yet I attribute those crashes due to my lack of RAM) but it doesn't crash nearly as bad as 9x. 9x just doesn't play nice when stuff goes wrong. At least in XP, you have a whole slew of user friendly tools to get you up and running again.
Well, if you're really emersed in the whole Microsoft software world, you know that upgrading is a lot of marketing talk... It happens often and is not necessary most of the time, yet here, I would make a definate exception. You're using Windows 95 still, and to upgrade that to any version of Windows today is not only getting a somewhat better operating system, but staying current with the technical support that Microsoft provides. They've dropped support for Windows 95 a while back and Office XP won't even install on 95. Again, all of this isn't necessary. Nothing is. GUI browsers are unnecessary. We could all use Lynx. But I digress... It's a matter of staying current. Microsoft likes making their consumers upgrade because its for fun and profit. After doing a little research, you'll realize that Windows XP really is an upgrade every Windows user should consider because it was built on a better kernel, is definately more user friendly than 9x, has a few automagical system maintenance features, and was designed to be task oriented. All of that jazz, as stupid as it sounds, really does make for a compelling upgrade. Why don't you try it some time... Windows 95 is old. Very old. Well, in Microsoft time, that is.
I don't think games necessarily *push* the envelope for UI development, but they probably are the first industry to publicly implement new ideas. There have to be UI labs somewhere that actually do research and create these interfaces, and game developers just make use of them.
On a side note, does anyone remember Secret of Mana (Seiken Densetsu 2)? It had that command ring interface, which I have yet to see duplicated even today. Does that exist elsewhere?
is it possible to play 3" cds in cd players that don't have trays, like some car cd players? i'd imagine there would be some kind of device around the cd to make it look big but i've never seen one before...
Artificial Life Reference?
on
Mob Software
·
· Score: 1
I'm still reading the somewhat lengthy article (on paper of course, can't read that much on screen)... But has anyone noticed the three rules the authors give for swarms? They're exactly the same as the three rules for flocking boids...
Well I'm assuming that you aren't scared of it and that you're very comfortable using it and interacting with it everyday. First, you have to get out of that mindset and into one that's more appropriate. The command prompt (at least the default one) has little to offer the user with a hostname and symbol. There are no commands readily available to the user, unlike in a GUI where things are visible. Yes, they have to *gasp* exhert physical effort other than vision to get started. With the GUI, you only have so many choices that are almost guaranteed to work. With a prompt, you can type in nearly anything and it will probably just yell at you if it isn't typed correctly (that sounds weird even though typing in ls -la | more seems very easy). So, it really isn't just reading 20 lines of text. It's hunting down what to type in and what commands do and wondering why a prompt is needed at all. And yes, it *is* easier to look through a menu most of the time, since a prompt will accept anything, including mispellings, while a menu will not.
I know you're joking, but define "real". If by "real" you mean "hardcore by means of text-based shell", then sure. If Windows isn't real, what is it? A fake operating system? A virus maybe?
That aside, I know exactly what you mean. There's always WinVi, which IMO is an excellent Vi clone for Windows (acts like Vi and NotePad). But you're right, Windows does seem chunky... Makes me wonder how much time M$ spent on optimization...
Hmm... I'm wondering, why would anyone want to learn Linux, other than to learn more about the innards of a computer... I treat Windows, Mac OS, and Linux as desktop operating systems for people who don't know what "compiling a kernel" means. With that said, since when did that kind of audience want to learn an operating system? Isn't an operating system supposed to be about operating your computer right off the bat? And not spending time tinkering with it and making it work?
But anyway, in the case of the guy above, if he wants to "learn Linux" I guess the more popular the distro the better, i.e. RedHat.
I'd just like to remind everyone before all the distro zealots start pouring in... This isn't about which distribution is the most hardcore or most powerful... It basically comes down to the one that can emulate Windows the most or hold the user's hand throughout the entire process. By that I mean at least documentation for everything, because users diving into Linux will only know that help doesn't always come from a talking paper clip... With that said, an auto install is a must. Sure, the guy asking the question was an NT user, and I'm sure the implies some technical merit above 9x users, but it still isn't much. Most people won't know the details of their hardware nor will they refer to the distro's website for compatibility listings. Why? Because Windows almost never required it... Hmm, the distro also has to be easy to use (tough, this usability thing isn't it) and easy to configure. People like making their computers look pretty and have nice wallpaper, so that's probably the first thing they'll dive for. Aside from a solid interface, a cutesy one would be nice too, complete with penguin or monkey or what have you, as to lessen the intimidation factor people have when using new technology. Oh and I really can't think of a solution for this, but it must be hard for GUI based users to get used to a command prompt. It's definately a necessary and powerful aspect of *NIX, but ya gotta admit, isn't it kinda cold and scary?
So, all in all, it doesn't necessarily have to be Windows, it just has to do the same things Windows does.
I'm curious, since I know little about hardcore programming, about how you program this kind of thing... How does it run? Forever until forced quit? And how do you record the results? And what if you stop the program, and run it again, will it remember what answers it already found? Hmm, very interesting indeed... (OT) I wonder if a computer can learn how to play games as well as people using genetic programming... Heh I'm a firm believer that a computer can do things way better than people once taught. =P
Absolutely! I have the majority of those books and plan on getting the last one =), all of which are excellent web design resources. Right off the bat, I recommend Web Design in a Nutshell (O'Reilly) and Don't Make Me Think, in addition to the books above. I can't stress enough the importance of solid web design in effective communication. These books are resources that every web page maker should read and have. As far as I can see, these books probably won't ever be outdated as they teach principles that apply to the future (good structure, valid code, extensibility, etc).
In response to another user's comment about manuals in a library... Yes, these would be well sought after books (it will probably entice readers into buying one for themselves). They're good, short reads for someone looking for answers right away, but they also function as great references for web designs, much in the way the Camel Book acts as the Bible for Perl nuts...
I don't *really* know but I'm thinking maybe because the "first" digit is zero, and the "second" digit is one... So... Things start counting from space zero.
Initially i thought this would be a paper for every windows user transitioning to linux but that obviously isn't the case. It seems that only proficient windows users would understand the majority of the paper. all the talk about mounting and swapfiles and ports... i think that's too much for mom and pop users who expect their computer to work like magic... then again, they're also the last people to even think about linux. so i guess this is a good start down the road of demystifying linux and making it easier to understand.
isn't there some kind of auto config option for installing linux? if it were to be a desktop os to contend with... asking lots of technical questions is a lot to ask for a user, regardless of expertise. well, even though i'm not a linux user, i can't deny the sheer power of a good ol' command prompt =)
It has been with my experience that the only way to truly avoid spam is to (aside from not having an e-mail account at all) never electronically express your real e-mail addy and keep a junk e-mail account handy. For example, if some form of registration asks me for my e-mail, I immediately give it my junk e-mail address (like the/. one above). You could always give a fake one too, like foo@bar.com, a favorite of mine, to just bypass it all togther. If one of my friends wants my e-mail, I'll give my real one to him in person and it writing probably. I know, It's a not-too-convenient practice, but hey, it's worked so far.
Uhh... I know this is going to hurt... But for all the people confused, such as me, would someone please list some hard core evidence that the excavators at the end of the movie were indeed robots?
I always tend to make my initial reaction a conclusion, and I only saw the movie once, so I assumed they were aliens. They looked like the stereotypical kind of aliens. Whats more, its hard to believe that they didn't coexist during the age of humanity or have some kind of record of humanity. If they really were the creation of the first generation AI, then this second generation should have all the knowledge of the first generation. The first generation coexisted with the humans (that's obvious). If I remember correctly, the alien commented as to the importance of David as one of few links back to humanity. This made it seem like they know little to nothing about humanity.
Btw, I've been told that Joe's only-robots-will-exist line foreshadows the end of humanity and the reign of robots, so that might help the they-are-robots side of things...
So, I'm willing to believe anything, but I'd like to have some concrete list of why they aren't aliens. (I'm aware someone gave a link to a NYTimes article supposedly shedding light on this issue, but the NYTimes server isn't playing nice w/ my box).
Slashdot Mirror
Aside from the standard time-is-money argument, why don't developers use an operating system's native environments for their software, much in the way Microsoft will do for Office v. X for Mac? One could counter this by saying that Microsft almost never uses the native GUI elements of Windows and always makes proprietary versions, like for Office, but the functionality of that proprietary ToolKit meets and exceeds the accessibility of Windows. It's been my personal and I guess limited experience that programs that don't use regular GUI elements (i.e. Limewire) generally suck.
Well what you're saying is basically like, "Why don't Americans like Latin? It's so much more succinct, why use all those words for nothing..." Most Americans don't know Latin! If a user grew up with Windows, he would more likely be used to the mouse and GUI and not even know of the shell. You have to keep in mind that these people might be slower on the shell because they don't know how to use it. Thus, that's an unfair comparison in speed.
(oh btw, i'm not a gui zealot. i like the cli sometimes. just trying to make friendly debate over ui issues...)
The advantage to point-n-click is that the options are most likely laid out for you in the open, thus not requiring the memorization of commands. With a CLI, you have to know exactly what you want do to. Some people don't have the convenience of time, memorizing and learning the syntax of the shell. For a GUI, there is no syntax. It clearly shows (well it should...) what you can and cannot do, as opposed to a shell which leaves you commandless until you type something. You sound as if a GUI is capable of nothing. Maybe that's because you've used a CLI for so long, you don't know all of the little tricks of a GUI. You know, an OS like Windows has nearly every menu accessible via keyboard so don't complain that the mouse is the only option.
As for the DOS thing... If a program can handle wildcards, you can just do
program *.x
just like UNIX, since DOS is a UNIX copy cat.
I think a GUI is also good for people who like to visualize their work or make quick and simple decisions. Let's say I wanted to delete all of the directories that start with a, I could do that in UNIX very fast. With a GUI, I'd probably have to hunt and peck. Although there *is* a file find command in Windows, so I can use that and wildcards, press CTRL A to select everything in the window, and be off with it with delete. Another thing I like about an explorer type interface is picking and choosing what files I want to manipulate as opposed to typing them out. I know there's tab completition, but sometimes the file names are too long or too similar to use a CLI. Again, a CLI will show nothing until told while a GUI will lay out nearly everything needed.
Again, its just a matter of whats appropriate and who knows what best. You're making the secretary sound completely ignorant of the keyboard while accessing the menus and that's not fair. By the way, I don't recall cashier's boxes ever having CTRL keys (unless they're PC boxen turned cash registers).
So please get off your high horse and realize that these are different tools for different purposes. As fast as a CLI can be and as old as it is, don't make it the end all be all of UI. Have you even considered an audio interface? That may be a viable possibility for the masses in the near future.
I agree with you, but you should revise the title. It isn't a matter of GUIs never being efficient, since it depends more on how familiar an interface is. Keep in mind that keyboard accessible GUIs can operate much faster with a keyboard than with a mouse. Unlike Apple, Microsoft has done a great job making nearly every aspect of the operating system accessible via keyboard. Once you memorize all of the shortcuts and such, its just as good and as cryptic as a CLI, sometimes.
I know the above was refering to software development, but I think an environment like AutoCAD is extremely cool. It welcomes people who like point and click, and yet a lump sum of the features interact with the user from the command line as well. I wonder if that kind of setup can be applied elsewhere...
By the way, my experience with CLI vs GUI has been... GUI does complex tasks faster than a CLI can, but for the basics, CLI can be used at a blazing speed for fast typists. The point-n-click strategy isn't cool when speed is a priority... But again, a hybrid is truly interesting.
i know it seems extremely out of place to post this here... but you were forewarned.
anyway, using winMe and ie6, clicking on the mozilla bug link on the front page reloads the slashdot front page with the form info tagged on to the end. has anyone else encountered this?
bug #96747 -- http://slashdot.org/?id=96747
this happens even though the link on the page points explicitly to the mozilla domain. clicking on the same link on the comments page loads the correct mozilla page
Jagged indicates rough, and thats just one of many minute details that visual designers labor over. If you're talking about fonts on screen, as in the terminal, then fine, anti-aliased fonts aren't a big deal. But in a medium resolution environments, anti-aliased fonts will feel different from black and white bitmappy fonts.
Well, at smaller resolutions, fonts don't need to be anti-aliased. Moreover, they shouldn't be anti-aliased, as there is a limited amount of pixels to work with. It's like rendered polygons versus sprites in games. Sprites will always rule in low end systems because they are hand-tweaked. On higher res environments, rendered (anti-aliased) graphics are prettier and scalable and thus better.
I think I'd sum it up as Microsoft is *not* bad, but Microsoft is *evil*. There's a big difference. Windows has to be *the* desktop operating system of, umm, "choice" and Office totally whips any other office suite... That means they have good software. It isn't bad. Yet their tactics are underhanded. That's evil. See?
It's not just a modified UI... It's a skinnable one, so that opens up path that UI developers can take. And since I'm assuming that you've never used it before, or at least more than just looking at it, you would know it makes subtle yet effective changes in responsiveness and usability, key factors in the operation of any device regardless of operating system. So, yeah, pretty colors go a long way, although (i'm guessing) most /.ers wouldn't know that since they're power users anyway...
/. is populated by Linux zealots!
Windows XP doesn't require an upgrade to the latest hardware. The people it tends to hurt are those that bought computers with Windows 95 on them. They're old. Windows 95 is old. Sure Linux or what have you can run on older hardware forever, but Windows is a commercial beast that needs attention, and its just about time for those old Windows 95 to revive their "computing experience" and upgrade.
Again, if you actually used Windows XP, you would know that is isn't all that useless. Things like System Restore do wonders in undoing the number of headaches caused by some Windows applications... It's automagical.
You know, there are always fans of any operating system, so the fact that there are Windows fans shouldn't be of any surpised. *gasp*
As far as the stability of 9x vs NT... I don't know. I'm using XP right now, and it crashes sometimes (yet I attribute those crashes due to my lack of RAM) but it doesn't crash nearly as bad as 9x. 9x just doesn't play nice when stuff goes wrong. At least in XP, you have a whole slew of user friendly tools to get you up and running again.
Well, if you're really emersed in the whole Microsoft software world, you know that upgrading is a lot of marketing talk... It happens often and is not necessary most of the time, yet here, I would make a definate exception. You're using Windows 95 still, and to upgrade that to any version of Windows today is not only getting a somewhat better operating system, but staying current with the technical support that Microsoft provides. They've dropped support for Windows 95 a while back and Office XP won't even install on 95. Again, all of this isn't necessary. Nothing is. GUI browsers are unnecessary. We could all use Lynx. But I digress... It's a matter of staying current. Microsoft likes making their consumers upgrade because its for fun and profit. After doing a little research, you'll realize that Windows XP really is an upgrade every Windows user should consider because it was built on a better kernel, is definately more user friendly than 9x, has a few automagical system maintenance features, and was designed to be task oriented. All of that jazz, as stupid as it sounds, really does make for a compelling upgrade. Why don't you try it some time... Windows 95 is old. Very old. Well, in Microsoft time, that is.
I don't think games necessarily *push* the envelope for UI development, but they probably are the first industry to publicly implement new ideas. There have to be UI labs somewhere that actually do research and create these interfaces, and game developers just make use of them.
On a side note, does anyone remember Secret of Mana (Seiken Densetsu 2)? It had that command ring interface, which I have yet to see duplicated even today. Does that exist elsewhere?
What does C:\ONGRTLNS.W95 mean?
Wow, those Martians are gonna have a laugh riot!
"The Schwartz!"
is it possible to play 3" cds in cd players that don't have trays, like some car cd players? i'd imagine there would be some kind of device around the cd to make it look big but i've never seen one before...
I'm still reading the somewhat lengthy article (on paper of course, can't read that much on screen)... But has anyone noticed the three rules the authors give for swarms? They're exactly the same as the three rules for flocking boids...
Well I'm assuming that you aren't scared of it and that you're very comfortable using it and interacting with it everyday. First, you have to get out of that mindset and into one that's more appropriate. The command prompt (at least the default one) has little to offer the user with a hostname and symbol. There are no commands readily available to the user, unlike in a GUI where things are visible. Yes, they have to *gasp* exhert physical effort other than vision to get started. With the GUI, you only have so many choices that are almost guaranteed to work. With a prompt, you can type in nearly anything and it will probably just yell at you if it isn't typed correctly (that sounds weird even though typing in ls -la | more seems very easy). So, it really isn't just reading 20 lines of text. It's hunting down what to type in and what commands do and wondering why a prompt is needed at all. And yes, it *is* easier to look through a menu most of the time, since a prompt will accept anything, including mispellings, while a menu will not.
I know you're joking, but define "real". If by "real" you mean "hardcore by means of text-based shell", then sure. If Windows isn't real, what is it? A fake operating system? A virus maybe?
That aside, I know exactly what you mean. There's always WinVi, which IMO is an excellent Vi clone for Windows (acts like Vi and NotePad). But you're right, Windows does seem chunky... Makes me wonder how much time M$ spent on optimization...
Hmm... I'm wondering, why would anyone want to learn Linux, other than to learn more about the innards of a computer... I treat Windows, Mac OS, and Linux as desktop operating systems for people who don't know what "compiling a kernel" means. With that said, since when did that kind of audience want to learn an operating system? Isn't an operating system supposed to be about operating your computer right off the bat? And not spending time tinkering with it and making it work?
But anyway, in the case of the guy above, if he wants to "learn Linux" I guess the more popular the distro the better, i.e. RedHat.
I'd just like to remind everyone before all the distro zealots start pouring in... This isn't about which distribution is the most hardcore or most powerful... It basically comes down to the one that can emulate Windows the most or hold the user's hand throughout the entire process. By that I mean at least documentation for everything, because users diving into Linux will only know that help doesn't always come from a talking paper clip... With that said, an auto install is a must. Sure, the guy asking the question was an NT user, and I'm sure the implies some technical merit above 9x users, but it still isn't much. Most people won't know the details of their hardware nor will they refer to the distro's website for compatibility listings. Why? Because Windows almost never required it... Hmm, the distro also has to be easy to use (tough, this usability thing isn't it) and easy to configure. People like making their computers look pretty and have nice wallpaper, so that's probably the first thing they'll dive for. Aside from a solid interface, a cutesy one would be nice too, complete with penguin or monkey or what have you, as to lessen the intimidation factor people have when using new technology. Oh and I really can't think of a solution for this, but it must be hard for GUI based users to get used to a command prompt. It's definately a necessary and powerful aspect of *NIX, but ya gotta admit, isn't it kinda cold and scary?
So, all in all, it doesn't necessarily have to be Windows, it just has to do the same things Windows does.
I'm curious, since I know little about hardcore programming, about how you program this kind of thing... How does it run? Forever until forced quit? And how do you record the results? And what if you stop the program, and run it again, will it remember what answers it already found? Hmm, very interesting indeed... (OT) I wonder if a computer can learn how to play games as well as people using genetic programming... Heh I'm a firm believer that a computer can do things way better than people once taught. =P
Absolutely! I have the majority of those books and plan on getting the last one =), all of which are excellent web design resources. Right off the bat, I recommend Web Design in a Nutshell (O'Reilly) and Don't Make Me Think, in addition to the books above. I can't stress enough the importance of solid web design in effective communication. These books are resources that every web page maker should read and have. As far as I can see, these books probably won't ever be outdated as they teach principles that apply to the future (good structure, valid code, extensibility, etc).
In response to another user's comment about manuals in a library... Yes, these would be well sought after books (it will probably entice readers into buying one for themselves). They're good, short reads for someone looking for answers right away, but they also function as great references for web designs, much in the way the Camel Book acts as the Bible for Perl nuts...
I don't *really* know but I'm thinking maybe because the "first" digit is zero, and the "second" digit is one... So... Things start counting from space zero.
Initially i thought this would be a paper for every windows user transitioning to linux but that obviously isn't the case. It seems that only proficient windows users would understand the majority of the paper. all the talk about mounting and swapfiles and ports... i think that's too much for mom and pop users who expect their computer to work like magic... then again, they're also the last people to even think about linux. so i guess this is a good start down the road of demystifying linux and making it easier to understand.
isn't there some kind of auto config option for installing linux? if it were to be a desktop os to contend with... asking lots of technical questions is a lot to ask for a user, regardless of expertise. well, even though i'm not a linux user, i can't deny the sheer power of a good ol' command prompt =)
It has been with my experience that the only way to truly avoid spam is to (aside from not having an e-mail account at all) never electronically express your real e-mail addy and keep a junk e-mail account handy. For example, if some form of registration asks me for my e-mail, I immediately give it my junk e-mail address (like the /. one above). You could always give a fake one too, like foo@bar.com, a favorite of mine, to just bypass it all togther. If one of my friends wants my e-mail, I'll give my real one to him in person and it writing probably. I know, It's a not-too-convenient practice, but hey, it's worked so far.
Uhh... I know this is going to hurt... But for all the people confused, such as me, would someone please list some hard core evidence that the excavators at the end of the movie were indeed robots?
I always tend to make my initial reaction a conclusion, and I only saw the movie once, so I assumed they were aliens. They looked like the stereotypical kind of aliens. Whats more, its hard to believe that they didn't coexist during the age of humanity or have some kind of record of humanity. If they really were the creation of the first generation AI, then this second generation should have all the knowledge of the first generation. The first generation coexisted with the humans (that's obvious). If I remember correctly, the alien commented as to the importance of David as one of few links back to humanity. This made it seem like they know little to nothing about humanity.
Btw, I've been told that Joe's only-robots-will-exist line foreshadows the end of humanity and the reign of robots, so that might help the they-are-robots side of things...
So, I'm willing to believe anything, but I'd like to have some concrete list of why they aren't aliens. (I'm aware someone gave a link to a NYTimes article supposedly shedding light on this issue, but the NYTimes server isn't playing nice w/ my box).