But here's what would have to change for me to use it:
1. Jettison the whole gconf/registry thing in favor of a tree of plain text config files in.gnome or something
2. Resurrect the old GNOME control center
3. Give me a default window manager with the ability to select focus-follows-mouse mouse
4. Construct a usable menu editor somewhere so that I can customize my menus
5. Choose: either a) reincorporate gecko into Nautilus for Web browsing or b) go lightweight and jettison Nautilus for the old gmc
6. Create a base distribution of official GNOME applications from a lot of the GTK stuff out there, based on which authors agree to follow a rigidly follow a GNOME style guide and use the GNOME API rather than just GTK, so that there is more desktop consistency
7. Add compatibility with KDE themes to GTK, since they seem superior (ability to change colors, not just widget styles, etc.)
8. Give me an "advanced mode" to turn on all kinds of extra GUI configuration bells and whistles like keybindings, autoraise, MIME types, etc.
Search for "OpenMotif" and "OpenCDE" the sources are out there and freely downloadable these days AFAIK, though I don't believe they qualify as "open source" according to the OSI-or-whatever defintion.
I started with a Newton. It was big and sort of clumsy physically, though. So, I went to a PalmOS device. It paled in functionality by comparison, though. So I went to a Windows CE-based device. It was slow and clumsy and just not as metaphorically intutive.
In the end, I ended up with a Newton 2000 again. With other PDAs, I eventually just stop using them. With the Newton 2000, even though I bitch about its size, I find myself using it all the time.
It recognizes my handwriting, as fast as I can write it, the way I write it (without needing a cursor to position the text, without needing to learn a special alphabet, without needing to write all letters over one another or write in a specific area of the screen). It has a unique chronological interface for categorizing and indexing (the index view vs. the content view, plus the "scrollable" nature of the content you create, rather than storing things in "files" or "documents").
Recently a friend gave me a Linux-based Zaurus PDA. It's a great little PDA and it's cool to start the Terminal and type linux commands on the slide-out keyboard.
But there's just nothing like the Newton; it's not a subtle difference at all... the Newton's entire user interface is a radical departure from anything else in computing, and until you've tried it for a week or two, you have no idea just how poorly designed current PDAs are, software-wise.
The world changes. Are you going to change with it?
OF COURSE NOT, not if it doesn't change for the better. What are you, a sheep?
I am not complaining. I am agreeing. This story is about someone who doesn't like the direction that GNOME has been going. Within the context of this story, it is YOU and YOUR "ilk" who are "complaining."
This attempt to patch GNOME doesn't take anything away from people who like GNOME as it is... unless more people start to use it than vanilla GNOME and vanilla GNOME fizzles.
But then, by your very own logic, the majority will have won.
So what, exactly, are you complaining about?!
So many GNOME evangelicals claim that everyone else is trying to stifle them when in reality they are projecting; they want to eliminate choice, whether it's within vanilla GNOME or by attempting to talk other GNOME work (like this story) out of existence.
Yes, but at the same time, a guitar with only one string or only ten frets (much, much simpler and easy to use!) would not be nearly as useful, even though the learning curve would be exponentially reduced.
I would argue that oversimplicity actually adds to complexity. For example, doing your corporate taxes on an abacus is not simple just because an abacus is perfectly simple. Or (to use a real world example), because GNOME has removed in the name of "simplicity" a lot of configuration options, any user wanting to change them (and I imagine that this number is larger than most GNOME coders want to admit) must use gconf and the GNOME registry. That is decidedly not more simple than just checking a checkbox with your mouse.
Simplicity is a valiant goal, but oversimplicity, loss of important functionality, and simple stupidity... aren't.
I am not complaining about it, you are complaining in response to a Slashdot story about a set of GNOME patches that someone wants to cook up to change some of what I see as GNOME's shortcomings.
A lot of GNOME supporters are the ones complaining; I'm just responding to say that I don't necessarily think this is a bad idea, or that (as you complained), options are only good for software masochists.
The point is that KDE and the early GNOME both offered more configurability without having to delve into things that resemble the Windows registry.
Here is the difference in our philosophies:
Current GNOME advocates: - Configurability means learning curve - Learning curve = bad - Remove configurability, users be damned
This simply refuses to serve those who are not in your majority (and I should note that I don't at all buy that this homogenous "majority" of users exists; to be confused by too many options is one thing, but to suggest that all users therefore want the *same* desktop is a huge logical disconnect).
I simply believe that a better philosophy is: - Configurability means learning curve - Design intelligently to minimize learning curve - While maintaining configurability - Thereby *potentially* serving *all* users
What GNOME advocates of your ilk are saying is "if you don't like it, don't use it, even though we once provided what you like and it would be simple and unobtrusive to add it back." Now someone else tries to add it back, and GNOME advocates are freaking out.
With that attitude, the GNOME community shouldn't complain when all of the people you've told to get lost (including app developers and the sorts of Linux users who go to *help out* at installfests) abandon you in droves. It is, after all, what you wanted. We're the users you didn't want to serve.
I wrote a review for a now defunct publication way back when GNOME 1.0 was first released. Comparing it to KDE at the time, my review said that it would have been a toss-up if GNOME 1.0 hadn't been so unstable. Anyone who remembers GNOME 1.0 will remember just what a crash-happy bugger it was.
I liked it a lot at the time, however, and I faithfully stuck with it (over KDE) for several months.
If GNOME had stayed on essentially the same track, adding only polish, features, unity and stability, I'd still be using GNOME today.
Instead, each new release of GNOME has taken away or changed more of the things I used/liked about it (read any Slashdot story, including this one, for a users' lists of grievances) and sometime during KDE 2.x, I went back to KDE. I've continued to track GNOME releases (I've got a fresh Fedora Core 2 install right now, so I've had a chance to test the most recent distributed GNOME desktops) but GNOME continues to travel farther and farther away from where I want my desktop to be.
Meanwhile, KDE has continued to steadily improve and with each new KDE release, I find myself happier and happier with my desktop.
It's a shame, but at least for some audiences (myself being a part of them), the height of GNOME's usability and coolness was probably the crash-happy GNOME 1.0. Instead of fixing the stability and polish problems and making it a nice desktop, the developers have gradually turned it into a less and less usable environment, an environment that I always feel is talking down to me while it tries to keep me in a kind of straitjacket.
Because something simple created to perfection will always be better than something advanced.
This is the fundamental, and as far as I can see, baseless argument made by too many GNOME fanatics and UI designers.
So what you are saying is:
perfect abacus > perfect quantum computer
or maybe:
perfect quill pen > perfect ball-point pen
Or is that not what you're saying? Can one of you "simplicity always rules, even if necessary benefits have to be excised" people for once actually provide a rationale for this claim that doesn't include a whole bunch of other baseless assumptions?
Features and options are not anathema to efficiency. I don't know where the hell this attitude comes from, but I get tired of hearing it on Slashdot.
I choose KDE because of its configurability, but I am certainly not a desktop masochist. It does actually make me more productive.
When I install a new KDE desktop, I do spend about twenty minutes setting all of the panel options, keyboard shortcuts, focus options, etc. to the way that I like them. And then I never have to touch them again, and my work is much more productive because my desktop works the way that I work.
With current verions of GNOME, or with Windows or Mac OS, I am expected to change my work habits to suit the desktop environment, rather than the other way around...
Sorry, but all people are not the same. Most people are not even the same. There is no majority or even clear plurality of work habits or preferences. This notion that you can create a desktop environment that will serve "most" users intuitively and only leave out the "desktop masochists" is just plain silly.
Give people the chance to customize their desktop cubicle and they'll do it. And any manager worth his salt will tell you that if person a) desperately wants a few houseplants in the cubby and person b) wants to hang a few christmas lights, they'll both probably be more productive if you let them do it, rather than putting them both in a lowest-common-denominator bare-white cubicle with a single one-size-fits-all "motivational" poster front and center that says something about "Determination" or "Faith" or "Honesty."
Desktop environments are no different. Configuration options are helpful because people are different.
As far as I am concerned, KDE has been useful since 2.x... several years now. I prefer KDE to Mac OS and I prefer it to Windows XP or Windows "classic."
I know that some idiot's going to say that it's just because I'm broken and that everyone else on the planet prefers Windows or Mac OS, but I suppose my general point is this: KDE+Linux is a great desktop now for both me and my retirement-aged, non-computer-professional parents.
If you give per-feature configurability like this, you have what people blame KDE for: lots and lots of options.
Now I'm a loyal KDE user at this point (having tried every GNOME release beginning with 1.0, and each time choosing KDE instead), so I have no problem with such a concept.
But it does seem to be the antithesis of the GNOME philosophy for the last couple of years.
Having just finished a stint working with a rock and roll concert tour in which nearly every waking moment was spent in a venue and nearly every non-waking moment on a travelling bus, AND, having been ill-prepared for the connectivity issues I would encounter while on this tour (it's easy to get 'net in a hotel while on the road, but what if you're never in hotels?!), I can honestly say that I'd be very interested in any technology that was a) mobile (PCMCIA or CF format?!) and b) available anywhere in North America for c) a flat monthly fee.
Running a Linux network here at home behind a dedicated Linux-based firewall/router. It's connected via cable service.
During the day, the neighborhood cable loop is so saturated with Windows worm probes between all of the connected PCs and (presumably) other peoples' popupware and spyware that downloads slow to a crawl, maybe 5-10kb/sec... essentially the same as a modem line, only less reliable due to peaks and bursts. The firewall/router logs hundreds and hundreds of probes from other peoples machines every hour.
The later in the evening we get (and the more people turn their PCs off), the faster the connection becomes, until sometime in the wee hours, maybe 2-3 AM, I can pull down 400kb/sec.
It's frustrating as hell, and I know it's frustrating to my neighbors, too, many of whom have asked for help in getting rid of worms/popupware/spyware repeatedly... If I help them clean their system up tuesday, it always seems to be full of crap again by thursday, even with the windows software firewall on.
I want to say "I'm glad I don't have to deal with Windows' security model," but given the effects it has on my network service, it seems like I essentially do.
They never cease to amaze me - whats next - the cassette recorder??
Yes.
Or how about my camcorder?
Absolutely.
Somehow Americans have always thought themselves immune from the same totalitarian instincts that have gripped other nations-- safety and economic stability (i.e. The Public Good) vs. individual agency is the classic dichotomy in public policy.
I keep wondering if Americans will wake up from their ultraconserviate post-9/11 love-fest with corporate and government interests in time to avoid becoming the new Evil Empire that expands ruthlessly outside its borders and supresses ruthlessly inside them.
So Slashdot readers generally agree with Linux users, Apple users, and socialists, and disagree with Microsoft and US policies.
So what?
Are you saying their opinions are wrong?
Are you suggesting that moderation is intended to be something beyond opinions about opinions (posts)? What ideal world (of your own making) do you live in?
In other words, TAKE A COURSE IN MS OFFICE! No, you are not a techno geek if you cannot get your windows machine stable. Especially if you cannot start IE anymore. My god, what a dweeb.
I can network a building, deploy an enterprise database server with hundreds of gigabytes of individual records, write code to index and convert my digital camera's RAW files, or build you a little robot whose function in life is to roll around the room seeking out the area in which sunlight, which powers it, is the strongest.
But I can NOT get my girlfriend's computer to start Internet Explorer or save a Word document without crashing. These are the EXACT problems she's having with Windows XP / Office XP. She won't let me re-install, she doesn't trust that all of her data will be there afterward (the concept of backups/restores being foggy to her at best). She at least let me install Netscape to browse the Web (she wouldn't allow Mozilla, because she didn't recognize the name, and we actually had a sizable fight over this)...
But now her Windows XP is more often than not refusing to get a DHCP lease... and if I try to manually renew it, it pops up a little window telling me that it's trying to get the net connection up, but the request never goes out over ether, and the little window never times out or goes away.
If only she would install Linux.
Oh, wait, I guess I just need to TAKE A COURSE IN MS OFFICE.
Why carry (and recharge every night) two pocket-size electronic devices when you can carry just a single one that does both?
Because a PDA should have a screen large enough to be useful. But that means that you may not want to carry it around all the time-- when you go on vacation, for example, or if you're just making a run to the convenience store for a twelve-pack. But of course you do want to carry your phone around all the time. Most phones right now will easily fit in a pants pocket unintrusively enough that you can jog or take a nap on a couch with them on your person. But a usably-sized PDA? Not really.
A headset? What if you're talking to someone about something and you need to pass the conversation for a moment to your friend, standing next to you? Much easier with a traditional form phone factor. What if you're backing up a full PDA and flash card and you want to make a phone call or go somewhere while you wait for the backup to complete?
What about battery life? Generally, you want your phone to be on all the time... but you don't want your PDA on unless you're using it, in order to maximize battery life. You've had a heavy day using your PDA at work and the battery is almost gone, but luckily work is almost over and you're going out with friends right afterward, you just need to call them to arrange a meeting place... d'oh! Battery dead, no phone all evening, unless you go home first and charge your PDA. Or feel free to reverse the scenario.
As usual, the integration of two devices means significant compromises for both.
Thing is, even though microdrives are rugged (I have several and have never had a problem with them), they are still filled with moving parts.
A lot of pro photographers are in really tough assignment areas (i.e. war zones, etc.) with digital gear like Nikon or Canon's professional offerings... These cameras can run $4-8k easily and are ruggedized, waterproof, dustproof, etc. If you're going to be hopping through ditches and onto freight trucks and getting your gear submerged in mud and water every five minutes, there might be a distinct advantage to storage with no moving parts...
I don't know what distinction you're trying to draw, but the Hitachi Microdrive in a Muvo2 will run just fine in a Compact Flash digital camera and will provide you with 4GB of storage.
After all, MS Word isn't an end in itself either, a nice, persuasive masters' thesis is the desired end. So MS Word is obviously a utility.
But wait! A nice document also isn't an end! The policy changes advocated by the masters' thesis are the desired end. Therefore, the masters' thesis is merely a utility!
But wait! The policy changes also aren't an end in themselves! The resultant changes in the environmental and social status quo are the desired end! Therefore the policy changes are merely utilitarian!...
In short, there is no such thing as "application," all things under heaven and on Earth are merely utility or "utilitarian," yes?
So let's just throw the word "application" out all together.
I'm in Chicago (Hyde Park). While people with other carriers can make calls even when in large buildings, I can't even make calls when I'm outside in open areas. I know I've seen people calling on the El. Me? Nope.
And I'll know I've just managed to pick up a strong enough signal to make a call sometimes because I'll get a sudden rush of text messages and voice mail... from all the people that have been trying to contact me for the last six hours while I was off the network and didn't realize it.
I tried three different phones (Nokia 5160, Nokia 8260, Nokia 6360) on TDMA national before they suggested a switch to GSM national. So I switched and now use a Sony/Ericsson phone. Same problems. I'll be sitting inside with no bars of signal watching people with other services talk leisurely... Or worse, I'll be standing outside with three bars of signal and still won't be able to get a call through the "network busy" problems... and then if I do, it will be dropped during the first sentence of the conversation.
Slashdot Mirror
But here's what would have to change for me to use it:
.gnome or something
1. Jettison the whole gconf/registry thing in favor of a tree of plain text config files in
2. Resurrect the old GNOME control center
3. Give me a default window manager with the ability to select focus-follows-mouse mouse
4. Construct a usable menu editor somewhere so that I can customize my menus
5. Choose: either a) reincorporate gecko into Nautilus for Web browsing or b) go lightweight and jettison Nautilus for the old gmc
6. Create a base distribution of official GNOME applications from a lot of the GTK stuff out there, based on which authors agree to follow a rigidly follow a GNOME style guide and use the GNOME API rather than just GTK, so that there is more desktop consistency
7. Add compatibility with KDE themes to GTK, since they seem superior (ability to change colors, not just widget styles, etc.)
8. Give me an "advanced mode" to turn on all kinds of extra GUI configuration bells and whistles like keybindings, autoraise, MIME types, etc.
Search for "OpenMotif" and "OpenCDE" the sources are out there and freely downloadable these days AFAIK, though I don't believe they qualify as "open source" according to the OSI-or-whatever defintion.
I started with a Newton. It was big and sort of clumsy physically, though. So, I went to a PalmOS device. It paled in functionality by comparison, though. So I went to a Windows CE-based device. It was slow and clumsy and just not as metaphorically intutive.
In the end, I ended up with a Newton 2000 again. With other PDAs, I eventually just stop using them. With the Newton 2000, even though I bitch about its size, I find myself using it all the time.
It recognizes my handwriting, as fast as I can write it, the way I write it (without needing a cursor to position the text, without needing to learn a special alphabet, without needing to write all letters over one another or write in a specific area of the screen). It has a unique chronological interface for categorizing and indexing (the index view vs. the content view, plus the "scrollable" nature of the content you create, rather than storing things in "files" or "documents").
Recently a friend gave me a Linux-based Zaurus PDA. It's a great little PDA and it's cool to start the Terminal and type linux commands on the slide-out keyboard.
But there's just nothing like the Newton; it's not a subtle difference at all... the Newton's entire user interface is a radical departure from anything else in computing, and until you've tried it for a week or two, you have no idea just how poorly designed current PDAs are, software-wise.
The world changes. Are you going to change with it?
OF COURSE NOT, not if it doesn't change for the better. What are you, a sheep?
I am not complaining. I am agreeing. This story is about someone who doesn't like the direction that GNOME has been going. Within the context of this story, it is YOU and YOUR "ilk" who are "complaining."
This attempt to patch GNOME doesn't take anything away from people who like GNOME as it is... unless more people start to use it than vanilla GNOME and vanilla GNOME fizzles.
But then, by your very own logic, the majority will have won.
So what, exactly, are you complaining about?!
So many GNOME evangelicals claim that everyone else is trying to stifle them when in reality they are projecting; they want to eliminate choice, whether it's within vanilla GNOME or by attempting to talk other GNOME work (like this story) out of existence.
Yes, but at the same time, a guitar with only one string or only ten frets (much, much simpler and easy to use!) would not be nearly as useful, even though the learning curve would be exponentially reduced.
I would argue that oversimplicity actually adds to complexity. For example, doing your corporate taxes on an abacus is not simple just because an abacus is perfectly simple. Or (to use a real world example), because GNOME has removed in the name of "simplicity" a lot of configuration options, any user wanting to change them (and I imagine that this number is larger than most GNOME coders want to admit) must use gconf and the GNOME registry. That is decidedly not more simple than just checking a checkbox with your mouse.
Simplicity is a valiant goal, but oversimplicity, loss of important functionality, and simple stupidity... aren't.
I am not complaining about it, you are complaining in response to a Slashdot story about a set of GNOME patches that someone wants to cook up to change some of what I see as GNOME's shortcomings.
A lot of GNOME supporters are the ones complaining; I'm just responding to say that I don't necessarily think this is a bad idea, or that (as you complained), options are only good for software masochists.
The point is that KDE and the early GNOME both offered more configurability without having to delve into things that resemble the Windows registry.
Here is the difference in our philosophies:
Current GNOME advocates:
- Configurability means learning curve
- Learning curve = bad
- Remove configurability, users be damned
This simply refuses to serve those who are not in your majority (and I should note that I don't at all buy that this homogenous "majority" of users exists; to be confused by too many options is one thing, but to suggest that all users therefore want the *same* desktop is a huge logical disconnect).
I simply believe that a better philosophy is:
- Configurability means learning curve
- Design intelligently to minimize learning curve
- While maintaining configurability
- Thereby *potentially* serving *all* users
What GNOME advocates of your ilk are saying is "if you don't like it, don't use it, even though we once provided what you like and it would be simple and unobtrusive to add it back." Now someone else tries to add it back, and GNOME advocates are freaking out.
With that attitude, the GNOME community shouldn't complain when all of the people you've told to get lost (including app developers and the sorts of Linux users who go to *help out* at installfests) abandon you in droves. It is, after all, what you wanted. We're the users you didn't want to serve.
I wrote a review for a now defunct publication way back when GNOME 1.0 was first released. Comparing it to KDE at the time, my review said that it would have been a toss-up if GNOME 1.0 hadn't been so unstable. Anyone who remembers GNOME 1.0 will remember just what a crash-happy bugger it was.
I liked it a lot at the time, however, and I faithfully stuck with it (over KDE) for several months.
If GNOME had stayed on essentially the same track, adding only polish, features, unity and stability, I'd still be using GNOME today.
Instead, each new release of GNOME has taken away or changed more of the things I used/liked about it (read any Slashdot story, including this one, for a users' lists of grievances) and sometime during KDE 2.x, I went back to KDE. I've continued to track GNOME releases (I've got a fresh Fedora Core 2 install right now, so I've had a chance to test the most recent distributed GNOME desktops) but GNOME continues to travel farther and farther away from where I want my desktop to be.
Meanwhile, KDE has continued to steadily improve and with each new KDE release, I find myself happier and happier with my desktop.
It's a shame, but at least for some audiences (myself being a part of them), the height of GNOME's usability and coolness was probably the crash-happy GNOME 1.0. Instead of fixing the stability and polish problems and making it a nice desktop, the developers have gradually turned it into a less and less usable environment, an environment that I always feel is talking down to me while it tries to keep me in a kind of straitjacket.
Because something simple created to perfection will always be better than something advanced.
This is the fundamental, and as far as I can see, baseless argument made by too many GNOME fanatics and UI designers.
So what you are saying is:
perfect abacus > perfect quantum computer
or maybe:
perfect quill pen > perfect ball-point pen
Or is that not what you're saying? Can one of you "simplicity always rules, even if necessary benefits have to be excised" people for once actually provide a rationale for this claim that doesn't include a whole bunch of other baseless assumptions?
Features and options are not anathema to efficiency. I don't know where the hell this attitude comes from, but I get tired of hearing it on Slashdot.
I choose KDE because of its configurability, but I am certainly not a desktop masochist. It does actually make me more productive.
When I install a new KDE desktop, I do spend about twenty minutes setting all of the panel options, keyboard shortcuts, focus options, etc. to the way that I like them. And then I never have to touch them again, and my work is much more productive because my desktop works the way that I work.
With current verions of GNOME, or with Windows or Mac OS, I am expected to change my work habits to suit the desktop environment, rather than the other way around...
Sorry, but all people are not the same. Most people are not even the same. There is no majority or even clear plurality of work habits or preferences. This notion that you can create a desktop environment that will serve "most" users intuitively and only leave out the "desktop masochists" is just plain silly.
Give people the chance to customize their desktop cubicle and they'll do it. And any manager worth his salt will tell you that if person a) desperately wants a few houseplants in the cubby and person b) wants to hang a few christmas lights, they'll both probably be more productive if you let them do it, rather than putting them both in a lowest-common-denominator bare-white cubicle with a single one-size-fits-all "motivational" poster front and center that says something about "Determination" or "Faith" or "Honesty."
Desktop environments are no different. Configuration options are helpful because people are different.
As far as I am concerned, KDE has been useful since 2.x... several years now. I prefer KDE to Mac OS and I prefer it to Windows XP or Windows "classic."
I know that some idiot's going to say that it's just because I'm broken and that everyone else on the planet prefers Windows or Mac OS, but I suppose my general point is this: KDE+Linux is a great desktop now for both me and my retirement-aged, non-computer-professional parents.
If you give per-feature configurability like this, you have what people blame KDE for: lots and lots of options.
Now I'm a loyal KDE user at this point (having tried every GNOME release beginning with 1.0, and each time choosing KDE instead), so I have no problem with such a concept.
But it does seem to be the antithesis of the GNOME philosophy for the last couple of years.
Having just finished a stint working with a rock and roll concert tour in which nearly every waking moment was spent in a venue and nearly every non-waking moment on a travelling bus, AND, having been ill-prepared for the connectivity issues I would encounter while on this tour (it's easy to get 'net in a hotel while on the road, but what if you're never in hotels?!), I can honestly say that I'd be very interested in any technology that was a) mobile (PCMCIA or CF format?!) and b) available anywhere in North America for c) a flat monthly fee.
Seriously.
Running a Linux network here at home behind a dedicated Linux-based firewall/router. It's connected via cable service.
During the day, the neighborhood cable loop is so saturated with Windows worm probes between all of the connected PCs and (presumably) other peoples' popupware and spyware that downloads slow to a crawl, maybe 5-10kb/sec... essentially the same as a modem line, only less reliable due to peaks and bursts. The firewall/router logs hundreds and hundreds of probes from other peoples machines every hour.
The later in the evening we get (and the more people turn their PCs off), the faster the connection becomes, until sometime in the wee hours, maybe 2-3 AM, I can pull down 400kb/sec.
It's frustrating as hell, and I know it's frustrating to my neighbors, too, many of whom have asked for help in getting rid of worms/popupware/spyware repeatedly... If I help them clean their system up tuesday, it always seems to be full of crap again by thursday, even with the windows software firewall on.
I want to say "I'm glad I don't have to deal with Windows' security model," but given the effects it has on my network service, it seems like I essentially do.
You don't get it.
9/11 = the lives of 3,000 (in America, anyway)
an inalienable right = the lives of all 250,000,000
Don't be a fool and vote to sacrifice all of our lives in order to "save" one or two.
They never cease to amaze me - whats next - the cassette recorder??
Yes.
Or how about my camcorder?
Absolutely.
Somehow Americans have always thought themselves immune from the same totalitarian instincts that have gripped other nations-- safety and economic stability (i.e. The Public Good) vs. individual agency is the classic dichotomy in public policy.
I keep wondering if Americans will wake up from their ultraconserviate post-9/11 love-fest with corporate and government interests in time to avoid becoming the new Evil Empire that expands ruthlessly outside its borders and supresses ruthlessly inside them.
Probably not.
So Slashdot readers generally agree with Linux users, Apple users, and socialists, and disagree with Microsoft and US policies.
So what?
Are you saying their opinions are wrong?
Are you suggesting that moderation is intended to be something beyond opinions about opinions (posts)? What ideal world (of your own making) do you live in?
In other words, TAKE A COURSE IN MS OFFICE! No, you are not a techno geek if you cannot get your windows machine stable. Especially if you cannot start IE anymore. My god, what a dweeb.
I can network a building, deploy an enterprise database server with hundreds of gigabytes of individual records, write code to index and convert my digital camera's RAW files, or build you a little robot whose function in life is to roll around the room seeking out the area in which sunlight, which powers it, is the strongest.
But I can NOT get my girlfriend's computer to start Internet Explorer or save a Word document without crashing. These are the EXACT problems she's having with Windows XP / Office XP. She won't let me re-install, she doesn't trust that all of her data will be there afterward (the concept of backups/restores being foggy to her at best). She at least let me install Netscape to browse the Web (she wouldn't allow Mozilla, because she didn't recognize the name, and we actually had a sizable fight over this)...
But now her Windows XP is more often than not refusing to get a DHCP lease... and if I try to manually renew it, it pops up a little window telling me that it's trying to get the net connection up, but the request never goes out over ether, and the little window never times out or goes away.
If only she would install Linux.
Oh, wait, I guess I just need to TAKE A COURSE IN MS OFFICE.
Sheesh.
This is the way it's always been & this is the way most UNIX+X users prefer it: highlight=copy, middle-click=paste.
Adapt.
Why carry (and recharge every night) two pocket-size electronic devices when you can carry just a single one that does both?
Because a PDA should have a screen large enough to be useful. But that means that you may not want to carry it around all the time-- when you go on vacation, for example, or if you're just making a run to the convenience store for a twelve-pack. But of course you do want to carry your phone around all the time. Most phones right now will easily fit in a pants pocket unintrusively enough that you can jog or take a nap on a couch with them on your person. But a usably-sized PDA? Not really.
A headset? What if you're talking to someone about something and you need to pass the conversation for a moment to your friend, standing next to you? Much easier with a traditional form phone factor. What if you're backing up a full PDA and flash card and you want to make a phone call or go somewhere while you wait for the backup to complete?
What about battery life? Generally, you want your phone to be on all the time... but you don't want your PDA on unless you're using it, in order to maximize battery life. You've had a heavy day using your PDA at work and the battery is almost gone, but luckily work is almost over and you're going out with friends right afterward, you just need to call them to arrange a meeting place... d'oh! Battery dead, no phone all evening, unless you go home first and charge your PDA. Or feel free to reverse the scenario.
As usual, the integration of two devices means significant compromises for both.
From someone who's lived in urban areas, usually on the wrong side of the tracks, his entire life:
1) If you look like you think you might get mugged, it's only a matter of time until you will get mugged.
2) If you look like you think nobody in their right mind would fscking try to mug you, nobody will ever try to mug you.
It's that simple. Being street-wise is often as simple as looking convincingly street-wise.
Thing is, even though microdrives are rugged (I have several and have never had a problem with them), they are still filled with moving parts.
A lot of pro photographers are in really tough assignment areas (i.e. war zones, etc.) with digital gear like Nikon or Canon's professional offerings... These cameras can run $4-8k easily and are ruggedized, waterproof, dustproof, etc. If you're going to be hopping through ditches and onto freight trucks and getting your gear submerged in mud and water every five minutes, there might be a distinct advantage to storage with no moving parts...
I don't know what distinction you're trying to draw, but the Hitachi Microdrive in a Muvo2 will run just fine in a Compact Flash digital camera and will provide you with 4GB of storage.
That semantic game is a bit silly.
...
After all, MS Word isn't an end in itself either, a nice, persuasive masters' thesis is the desired end. So MS Word is obviously a utility.
But wait! A nice document also isn't an end! The policy changes advocated by the masters' thesis are the desired end. Therefore, the masters' thesis is merely a utility!
But wait! The policy changes also aren't an end in themselves! The resultant changes in the environmental and social status quo are the desired end! Therefore the policy changes are merely utilitarian!
In short, there is no such thing as "application," all things under heaven and on Earth are merely utility or "utilitarian," yes?
So let's just throw the word "application" out all together.
Or, we could stop playing semantic games...
I'm in Chicago (Hyde Park). While people with other carriers can make calls even when in large buildings, I can't even make calls when I'm outside in open areas. I know I've seen people calling on the El. Me? Nope.
And I'll know I've just managed to pick up a strong enough signal to make a call sometimes because I'll get a sudden rush of text messages and voice mail... from all the people that have been trying to contact me for the last six hours while I was off the network and didn't realize it.
I tried three different phones (Nokia 5160, Nokia 8260, Nokia 6360) on TDMA national before they suggested a switch to GSM national. So I switched and now use a Sony/Ericsson phone. Same problems. I'll be sitting inside with no bars of signal watching people with other services talk leisurely... Or worse, I'll be standing outside with three bars of signal and still won't be able to get a call through the "network busy" problems... and then if I do, it will be dropped during the first sentence of the conversation.
AT&T, in Chicago especially, sucks.