sn't this missing the point of how google works? OK, so it measures the success, but it won't tell you anything (or much) about the actual search algorythm as google is actually basing the score not only on the page you link to but also pages that link to IT.
I think you're the one who missed the point. Among other things, one can use these figures to estimate optimal keyword density, and then strive to achieve that density in one's own sites. It also helps to determine what parts of a URL Google weights the most heavily.
A FAST FTP search, download.com query, and Google search for FirefoxSetup-0.8.exe turned up squat. Is there a list of official Mozilla mirrors or some other place where the impatient can get it?
I've got high hopes for this release. I had stability problems with 0.7 in both Linux and XP. Someday I'd love to see them implement some session recovery features, like Opera's.
This positive press is well-timed, since Britain is currently orchestrating a witch hunt against extreme adult web sites since some guy murdered his girlfriend:
"Coutts reportedly began searching the web for the same violent content that had driven him to murder in the first place."
"A complaint waged by the victim's mother was reportedly the catalyst behind the British government's clampdown on violent porn."
If it's at all possible at your new home, I highly recommend getting a big dish--you know, the 6-10ft (or more) dishes that are still a relatively common sight in rural areas. I know what you're thinking: big dishes are analog dinosaurs, and DSS is superior because the dishes are smaller. Imho, the small dish size is just about the only thing superior about DSS, as I intend to prove.:)
Signal quality - These days, big dishes can receive both analog AND digital signals with the right equipment (yes, it's affordable). These days, the digital signals are typically encoded in MPEG-2. Think it doesn't get any better than DSS? DSS signals are relayed through an interceder. With a big dish, the signal you get goes from the originator to a satellite in space (Telstar/Galaxy/etc.), to you. And HDTV isn't just a promise from your cable company, it's readily available.
Programming - One of the coolest things about big dish TV is that there's so much great free programming, especially for discerning geeks. Of course, you can also get the same kind of programming that's available on DSS (actually, far more). Some of it's encryped and some of it's not ("free-to-air"). Music channels like as found on DSS are also available. For me, being able to access international programming is one of the most attractive features.
Interestingly, in addition to dedicated channels on designated bands, you can often catch "wild feeds," which are one-time broadcasts on a certain band and channel that one can watch for free. If that doesn't have geek appeal, then I'm in the wrong club.
TCO - Yes, the hardware is initially much more expensive than DSS and cable, but once you own it, the operating cost is very, very low. If you subscribe to DSS for more than two-years, I think you'll find the cost of big dish hardware competitive. Since you can subscribe pay channels a la carte, monthly fees can be negligible.
Geek factor - Owning and maintaining a big dish makes for a really cool on-going project. Personally, I also like learning about satellite communication technologies. Everything about the dish can be DIY, although I highly recommend assistance with the initial installation. After that, most slashdot readers should be capable of performing their own upgrades to accomodate different signal types. Some people also paint their dishes.
Where available, DSS and cable are probably preferable for non-tech types. Big dish technology has a learning curve, and your living arrangements must be able to accomodate the dish, but I think it's worth it. If you're intimated by the technology but you've got the cash, you can certainly hire pros to do nearly everything, and subscribe to programming packages like DSS owners do.
That definitely sucks, and I feel for you. What's also unfortunate is that this is the sort of situation that drives some people to filing patent applications even if they're politically/ethically opposed to it. If you're really cornered and the development schedule for a similar product is ponderous, would you consider selling your product to (in this sample case) Intuit?
As someone who's been working on this for the last eighteen months, let me tell you the sad truth: Being faster, better and cheaper... and even first to market... isn't nearly enough. What you'll need is the business deals that your competition already has set up. And they're most likely exclusive.
It sounds like your strategy has been to actively seek out contracts rather than develop your own product line; the latter can be promoted for very little money. Two of my buddies started developing shareware applications and formed a LLC called Programming Art. I was highly dubious when they told me they were building a slideshow app, and even moreso when they announced a typing tutor program, since these markets are so dense as it is.
But then two things happened that made me think again: first, they pointed out that even though each of these markets are served by established product lines, the markets are so BIG that even if you only capture 1%, you're still doing well financially--especially if you're a small operation with very little overhead. Apparently their business model was sound enough, because in no time their products started scoring large corporate site licenses, not to mention very respectable single-user sales figures.
It's not always as difficult as it may seem to get the winning edge. Maybe your product offers competitive licensing terms. Some people choose one program over another mainly because they like the interface better. Or your app has one feature that sets you apart from the crowd. The fact that Programming Art's typing tutor has a Dvorak mode differentiates it from most of its competitors.
Don't automatically rule out a software market if its rife with competing products. Learn from other people's mistakes and think about what their products lack--then find your niche.
This query paraphrases the resurgent question in the IT world as to the relative value of technical certifications in today's market. Can anyone contest that IT/IS job market in Silicon Valley is worlds away from those in sparsely populated regions of the midwest? Bearing this in mind, surely we can't assign a universal value to any certification, so how can anyone definitively answer mckeefarley's question?
I'd like to cite a couple of cases to illustrate this point further, in case it's helpful to anyone. My cousin and I work in related IT fields and we occasionally compare notes between our respective job markets. He possesses several major tech certs, including CCNA, MSCE, CNA, A+, Network+, et al. He reports that in San Diego, the IT job market is so competitive that many employers prequire MCSE certificaiton for Level 1 Help Desk positions. A November 2003 slashdot article addressed a similar sort of brass employment strategy.
In other markets, a certain certification is assigned an unusually high value. In southwest Michigan, for example, the IBM AS/400 enjoyed great popularity for years. Regardless of how this came to be, it created a market that strongly favored certified AS/400 Professional System Administrators and certified RPG programmers, while those certified in competing UNIX platforms found the job market relatively thin.
This unpredictability has caused me to favor certifications that don't expire (especially CompTIA's) whenever possible.
Because lord knows XFree86 has one of the dookiest logos ever!
Yes, there are many more important reasons why the merge is a positive thing, but when I first started using Linux as a teenager in 1994, I loved the X11 logo, and it definitely contributed to my perception of Linux and UNIX. Let's face it: the X Consortium's logo feels clean and elegant, but it looks hard and deadly.
I've built and used three Shuttle XPCs, but I have not yet worked with the Zen model. At this point I must say that I'm disillusioned with the XPCs in general, and I can only hope that the Zen corrects the problems of previous models.
Due to the cramped interior design, physically accessing most internal components requires removing a number of other parts first. The drive cage in the SK41G actually has a bumper on the side because there's not enough space between the PCI slot and drive cage! The bumper bends my sound card to one side to keep it from making contact with the cage.:( The drive cage itself is cheaply made and susceptible to vibrational noise; with a 7200rpm+ drive and a fast optical drive, this easily becomes a problem.
Externalizing the PSU is a laudable move. I've had considerable problems with XPCs overheating, and two of the XPCs I've worked with had bad PSU fans: one made a crackling noise, and the other was totally dead (out of the box). Why not just modularize the thing even further and externalize the drive cage as well?
The overheating problem is especially disappointing considering that, in my experience, the variable-rate SmartFans don't react quickly/intelligently enough to prevent heat-related system hangs. Using a high-performance video card in an XPC exacerbates this problem, which has forced me to run the fans on the highest setting at all times (yes, the CPU is burned-in, and I'm using a non-electrically-conductive thermal grease).
After three systems and two RMAs, I finally decided that Shuttle XPCs aren't for me.
I can certainly see where you and Phipps are coming from. To address your points: I find it easy to ignore the 'BSD is dead' blather because the trolls are just that: trolls. The claim is sufficiently unrealistic as to be inconsequential and ignorable in this forum. However, I find that many of the criticisms of BeOS are valid enough to be worth addressing. I don't argue for or against the BeOS, I just see a need to resolve some outstanding issues.
I've read the interview with Michael Phipps, and I can relate to his view of BeOS as an evolution of AmigaOS. Perhaps the fact that OpenBeOS runs on the M68030 and other non-x86 hardware is itself justification enough for the OBOS project. I can also sympathize with the desire to resurrect the spirit of AmigaOS in OpenBeOS. The OBOS team has a passion for a computing experience that transcends utilitarianism, and I respect that.
Years ago, Jean-Louis Gassee wrote about his motivation for creating the BeOS, and although it's not entirely different from Phipps', it's clear that they have some pretty different ideas of what the BeOS is about. Most notably, Phipps seems to be unconcerned (in the interview) with perpetuating BeOS's former identity as a media OS.
I've chosen to adhere to its "media OS" definition for a very important reason: if no one makes this distinction, then it's unclear whether we're discussing the need for BeOS as a media-oriented operating system, or the relevance of a BeOS-compatible operating system.
The various BeOS resurrection projects have different ideas about this, but imho the attempt at optimized multimedia performance was BeOS's most defining characteristic. As it stands, OpenBeOS appears to be destined for other things.
BeOS news always generates the same responses: it's unnecessary, it's unteneble, it falls short of expectations, etc. BeOS seems to receive more criticism than most other underdog OS's because--to some minds--its irrelevance has already been "proven" by Be, Inc's failure, while most others have still to define their niche--or are still too immature even to fail to compete.
At this point I don't know whether I consider BeOS to be worth defending. I guess it comes down to these questions: is BeOS fundamentally a more efficient platform for multimedia development? Is Linux architecture so different as to be incapable of matching BeOS performance in regards to MIDI performance, audio processing, nonlinear video editing, or 3D development? Is the performance gap substantial?
Even if the answer to all of these questions is "yes," surely it is not so when comparing 64-bit Linux to the BeOS (with the exception of MIDI performance). And if 32-bit Open BeOS is so difficult to realize, then how much moreso for a 64-bit BeOS?
BeOS has a potential market in that there is no other "multimedia OS" as defined by Be, and for that reason there are hangers-on. Sadly, the implications brought up in previous BeOS discussions suggest that BeOS itself fails as a multimedia OS. If anyone has any encouraging counterpoints, please share.
The T-Cube's dimensions are 52x52x45mm. That's pretty damn small!
For those outside Asia, comparing the T-Cube's size to an orange may be a little misleading, although it's apparent from the photo that the oranges are smaller than navel oranges. To further clarify the point of reference, djqed is right in that the oranges in the photos are mikan. 'Mikan' is the Japanese word for mandarin oranges, of which tangerines are one type (but the oranges in the photos aren't tangerines).
I wonder how many people are turned off of personal digital audio players by the compromised sound quality of lossy codecs? The price per megabyte isn't nearly so attractive for those that prefer lossless quality.
When MiniDisc was new (and expensive), manufacturers targeted audiophiles while the advertising emphasized custom mixes and sound quality (even though ATRAC is also lossy). With "MP3 players," the emphasis is usually on quantity, not quality. Being able to accomodate realtime filters like DFX might be a way to find some middle ground.
I realize that most consumers either tolerate or are unaware of the fidelity loss, hence the continued dominance of the now inferior MP3 format. Still, I think that in order for this market to grow more quickly, it should educate consumers about the options available to them with these devices: CD quality if you want it, or OGG (etc.) if you want more tracks per MB.
So, the Author may be dying because there are no new ideas, but (s)he will rise again one day.
Well observed. But, as you implied (if I understood correctly), the heraldic Author is not necessarily a new individual or gorup, since a genius work might lie in those all-but-forgotten stacks, waiting to be reinterpreted in a way that releases its potential.
Even if the works in question are not revolutionary, the evolutionary progress they demark may still be ignored or unappreciated.
I think a major reason that many of these papers remain undebated is that theory is not consistently emphasized in CS/CIS/CSE/etc. undergraduate programs, and I do not believe that the scientific nature of Computer and Information Science is emphasized early in the academic careers of undergrads by and large.
Symptoms of this problem have been discussed here before. Perhaps you'll agree that one dilemma is that undergrads who don't aspire to graduate school take a stiflingly pragmatic view of their coursework: many want the IT-oriented curriculum of a technical school, but don't want to compromise the quality of a university education. At universities, these students coexist in the department with MS- and PhD-minded students who have an academic interest in theory.
Suffice it to say that some students interpret the term "Computer Science" loosely, since in practice a CS student is unlikely to become a scientist. Since the "average/.er" is no exception, it would be completely unsurprising to learn that most of the community doesn't read technical papers dealing with research and theory.
There are necessary and harmonious differences between those concerned with theory and those concerned with application, but the ambiguous definition of a student of Computer Science, and the overwhelmingly popular preference for application (IT), worries me insofar as it engenders a widespread equanimity in an educated community that feigns to live on the cutting edge.
Adobe's Creative Suite is clearly a response to Macromedia's MX Studio suite. This is further evidenced by Adobe's new pricing structure, in which indivudal products cost more than previous releases, but one gets a slightly better deal by buying the suite.
The step up in copy protection is unwelcome, although no doubt overdue from Adobe's vantage point. This is not appear to be a time for creating new (unlicensed) users, but for leveraging all-or-nothing site licenses for most of their most popular products.
For years, Adobe's copy protection scheme has been failry minimal, even in high ticket products like the UNIX version of FrameMaker+SGML. This made it easier to believe that they turned a blind eye to piracy of their (comparitively lower-priced) flagship products, especially given the prevailing theory that Adobe creates brand loyalty by tolerating college-age pirates. If one plays the devil's advocate and assumes that this theory is sound, perhaps we can interpret the new activation scheme as a sign that Adobe feels sufficiently entrenched in enough markets (or feels enough pressure from Macromedia), that it's time for a more aggressive strategy, however unpopular the change may be among users and budget planners.
Suffice it to say that Adobe's protection methods were weak compared to certain other product lines with similar price points and consumer markets.
However, what I find inexcusable is the steep upward trend of its pricing structure, especially in regards to educational licenses. My former university's art department was underfunded enough that they were almost always using development software that was one or two generations behind. This move will surely stifle upgrade possibilities even further.
I don't doubt that Adobe is in a position to make certain demands. But, speculation aside, they've long struck me as a company that doesn't seem to fully grasp the impact their products can have on the desktop. I wish they'd use their powers more wisely.
Two years ago, my company cohosted an Adobe convention of sorts. At this time, Adobe was strongly pushing Acrobat; unless I missed the point, Acrobat is supposed to universalize platform-independent shared documents. And who can create these "platform-independent" documents? Users of Windows and Mac OS!
After the last presentation, I approached an Adobe marketing rep and frankly asked why they had dropped Linux support (they'd recently dropped plans to port one or more key products to Linux). The marketing person looked very annoyed, and refused to make eye contact. Her dismissive reply was, "You have to go where the market is." To me, this answer is nothing more than short-sighted bollocks, and I'm still flabbergasted by it. My response to Adobe now is this: 'You're Adobe. You fucking MAKE the market.' They have the power, but not the foresight. Just think how much more money shops would have to spend on Adobe products if they could run them on Linux.
We start with an inferior file system, and then mmmmmmmmm... we pour on the overhead. First, a creamy layer of laughable SQL database implementation... then we top it all off with a questionable application of a steaming hot technology. Ooh, baby it's like a huge performance boost in my mouth.
Eat it fast before the indices self-corrupt and you lose all your data relationships.
Mont Blanc is easily one of the most recognized names in fountain and rollerball pens today. However, my local independent pen merchant had only negative things to say about them when I dropped the name, and with a little more experience and research, I have to agree with his position: they're overrated.
For the money, Mont Blanc pens tend to be ridiculously fragile, and repair costs range from $35 to $400+ (USD). Sometimes leakage is a result of improper pen storage and/or maintenance, but with Mont Blancs the problem seems to be suspiciously epidemic.
Don't take my word for it, but don't blindly trust the name either. If you have access to a fine pen shop, spend some time learning about the subject, then do the comparitive research. Imho, if you really want a pen that will last a lifetime, Mont Blanc is not the one.
The 'BeOS is dead' talk reminds me of the 'UNIX is dead' rhetoric with which we're all familiar. While the historical significance of BeOS is dwarfed by that of UNIX, it's my hope that an open BeOS will mature and grow in popularity just as Linux developed as a free UNIX alternative that eventually outshown its forefathers.
OpenBSD and FreeBSD have great port systems. BeOS could have a port tree that's just as good, if not better. At this point Linux may have a software base to be reckoned with, but I'd reckon that most of that software could easily be ported to Be. If the software base were there, even via a Lin/Win compatibility layer, I'd readopt BeOS in an instant.
I think today marks the first time I've seen so many harsh (and baseless) criticisms of BeOS. I think it's worth noting that most of the critics who've spoken up thus far do not appear to have ever used BeOS. That's really a shame, because it should appeal to both Mac OS and Linux users alike. The interface is considerably more responsive than Aqua and XFree86; and, of course, the multimedia performance is astounding. If Mac OS X had 40% more function and 40% form, you'd have BeOS.
BeOS is available for both PPC and x86 platforms. BeOS sports the lowest MIDI latency figures I've ever seen. BeOS has great workflow and an innovative desktop. BeOS runs well on old hardware. BeOS has great GL performance. BeOS apps are surprisingly portable. Coding for the BeOS is, as some have described it, 'a joy.' BeOS runs popular UNIX command interpreters. BeOS's windows can interact with one another in a way that no OS has ever achieved. BeOS rules.
Factory workers aren't the only groups that are unionized. To my mind, we should evaluated the state of telecom and electrical workers' unions when considering whether the IT industry would benefit; especially considering the overlap with these industries that surely exists in some of our job descriptions.
Further, there's a wide berth of job functions within the IT industry. Assuming that unionization is a good idea for high tech workers in general, would the union umbrella cover everyone from data entry "specialists" to systems analysts? What I've read thus far suggests that most people are equating "high tech" with "software development"--is this really what we're discussing?
As for the argument that unionization would encourage international outsourcing, I think that this is a shortsighted prediction. While a cheaper IT workforce may be found in India (et al), it seems to me that there's already a great deal of malcontent among India's IT workers as it is, often due to low wages. Americans want to outsource high-tech development to India to cut costs, and high-tech professionals in India want to move to the West to make more money... hmmm. Sounds like a pretty transitory situation to me.
In the past, when blue collar workers en masse have lost their jobs due to American companies utilizing Mexican and East Asian labor, Americans rejoined with a zeal for products manufactured locally. Is it so strange to consider that such a scnario might replay in the case of American-made software?
I desperately want to find a database/list of resonant frequencies of common organic and semisynthetic molecules. Either a software package, downloadable archive, or web gateway would be smashing. This is perhaps one of the largest resources I have been unable to locate any information about whatsoever, other than references there-to in e-mail.
Drop me a line if you can help:
tranquil_eye@yahoo.com
Slashdot Mirror
sn't this missing the point of how google works? OK, so it measures the success, but it won't tell you anything (or much) about the actual search algorythm as google is actually basing the score not only on the page you link to but also pages that link to IT.
I think you're the one who missed the point. Among other things, one can use these figures to estimate optimal keyword density, and then strive to achieve that density in one's own sites. It also helps to determine what parts of a URL Google weights the most heavily.
it's top heavy and prone to tipping over (or worse *gulp*)
Accidental swallowing?
A FAST FTP search, download.com query, and Google search for FirefoxSetup-0.8.exe turned up squat. Is there a list of official Mozilla mirrors or some other place where the impatient can get it? I've got high hopes for this release. I had stability problems with 0.7 in both Linux and XP. Someday I'd love to see them implement some session recovery features, like Opera's.
This positive press is well-timed, since Britain is currently orchestrating a witch hunt against extreme adult web sites since some guy murdered his girlfriend:
"Coutts reportedly began searching the web for the same violent content that had driven him to murder in the first place."
"A complaint waged by the victim's mother was reportedly the catalyst behind the British government's clampdown on violent porn."
Awwww, mom!
If it's at all possible at your new home, I highly recommend getting a big dish--you know, the 6-10ft (or more) dishes that are still a relatively common sight in rural areas. I know what you're thinking: big dishes are analog dinosaurs, and DSS is superior because the dishes are smaller. Imho, the small dish size is just about the only thing superior about DSS, as I intend to prove. :)
Signal quality - These days, big dishes can receive both analog AND digital signals with the right equipment (yes, it's affordable). These days, the digital signals are typically encoded in MPEG-2. Think it doesn't get any better than DSS? DSS signals are relayed through an interceder. With a big dish, the signal you get goes from the originator to a satellite in space (Telstar/Galaxy/etc.), to you. And HDTV isn't just a promise from your cable company, it's readily available.
Programming - One of the coolest things about big dish TV is that there's so much great free programming, especially for discerning geeks. Of course, you can also get the same kind of programming that's available on DSS (actually, far more). Some of it's encryped and some of it's not ("free-to-air"). Music channels like as found on DSS are also available. For me, being able to access international programming is one of the most attractive features.
Interestingly, in addition to dedicated channels on designated bands, you can often catch "wild feeds," which are one-time broadcasts on a certain band and channel that one can watch for free. If that doesn't have geek appeal, then I'm in the wrong club.
TCO - Yes, the hardware is initially much more expensive than DSS and cable, but once you own it, the operating cost is very, very low. If you subscribe to DSS for more than two-years, I think you'll find the cost of big dish hardware competitive. Since you can subscribe pay channels a la carte, monthly fees can be negligible.
Geek factor - Owning and maintaining a big dish makes for a really cool on-going project. Personally, I also like learning about satellite communication technologies. Everything about the dish can be DIY, although I highly recommend assistance with the initial installation. After that, most slashdot readers should be capable of performing their own upgrades to accomodate different signal types. Some people also paint their dishes.
Where available, DSS and cable are probably preferable for non-tech types. Big dish technology has a learning curve, and your living arrangements must be able to accomodate the dish, but I think it's worth it. If you're intimated by the technology but you've got the cash, you can certainly hire pros to do nearly everything, and subscribe to programming packages like DSS owners do.
That definitely sucks, and I feel for you. What's also unfortunate is that this is the sort of situation that drives some people to filing patent applications even if they're politically/ethically opposed to it. If you're really cornered and the development schedule for a similar product is ponderous, would you consider selling your product to (in this sample case) Intuit?
As someone who's been working on this for the last eighteen months, let me tell you the sad truth: Being faster, better and cheaper... and even first to market... isn't nearly enough. What you'll need is the business deals that your competition already has set up. And they're most likely exclusive.
It sounds like your strategy has been to actively seek out contracts rather than develop your own product line; the latter can be promoted for very little money. Two of my buddies started developing shareware applications and formed a LLC called Programming Art. I was highly dubious when they told me they were building a slideshow app, and even moreso when they announced a typing tutor program, since these markets are so dense as it is.
But then two things happened that made me think again: first, they pointed out that even though each of these markets are served by established product lines, the markets are so BIG that even if you only capture 1%, you're still doing well financially--especially if you're a small operation with very little overhead. Apparently their business model was sound enough, because in no time their products started scoring large corporate site licenses, not to mention very respectable single-user sales figures.
It's not always as difficult as it may seem to get the winning edge. Maybe your product offers competitive licensing terms. Some people choose one program over another mainly because they like the interface better. Or your app has one feature that sets you apart from the crowd. The fact that Programming Art's typing tutor has a Dvorak mode differentiates it from most of its competitors.
Don't automatically rule out a software market if its rife with competing products. Learn from other people's mistakes and think about what their products lack--then find your niche.
Those are interesting, finding out what Tony Danza uses isn't.
It is when his desktop background is a screen grab from that one episode of Who's the Boss? where he sees Angela naked in the shower.
This query paraphrases the resurgent question in the IT world as to the relative value of technical certifications in today's market. Can anyone contest that IT/IS job market in Silicon Valley is worlds away from those in sparsely populated regions of the midwest? Bearing this in mind, surely we can't assign a universal value to any certification, so how can anyone definitively answer mckeefarley's question?
I'd like to cite a couple of cases to illustrate this point further, in case it's helpful to anyone. My cousin and I work in related IT fields and we occasionally compare notes between our respective job markets. He possesses several major tech certs, including CCNA, MSCE, CNA, A+, Network+, et al. He reports that in San Diego, the IT job market is so competitive that many employers prequire MCSE certificaiton for Level 1 Help Desk positions. A November 2003 slashdot article addressed a similar sort of brass employment strategy.
In other markets, a certain certification is assigned an unusually high value. In southwest Michigan, for example, the IBM AS/400 enjoyed great popularity for years. Regardless of how this came to be, it created a market that strongly favored certified AS/400 Professional System Administrators and certified RPG programmers, while those certified in competing UNIX platforms found the job market relatively thin.
This unpredictability has caused me to favor certifications that don't expire (especially CompTIA's) whenever possible.
Because lord knows XFree86 has one of the dookiest logos ever!
Yes, there are many more important reasons why the merge is a positive thing, but when I first started using Linux as a teenager in 1994, I loved the X11 logo, and it definitely contributed to my perception of Linux and UNIX. Let's face it: the X Consortium's logo feels clean and elegant, but it looks hard and deadly.
I've built and used three Shuttle XPCs, but I have not yet worked with the Zen model. At this point I must say that I'm disillusioned with the XPCs in general, and I can only hope that the Zen corrects the problems of previous models.
:( The drive cage itself is cheaply made and susceptible to vibrational noise; with a 7200rpm+ drive and a fast optical drive, this easily becomes a problem.
Due to the cramped interior design, physically accessing most internal components requires removing a number of other parts first. The drive cage in the SK41G actually has a bumper on the side because there's not enough space between the PCI slot and drive cage! The bumper bends my sound card to one side to keep it from making contact with the cage.
Externalizing the PSU is a laudable move. I've had considerable problems with XPCs overheating, and two of the XPCs I've worked with had bad PSU fans: one made a crackling noise, and the other was totally dead (out of the box). Why not just modularize the thing even further and externalize the drive cage as well?
The overheating problem is especially disappointing considering that, in my experience, the variable-rate SmartFans don't react quickly/intelligently enough to prevent heat-related system hangs. Using a high-performance video card in an XPC exacerbates this problem, which has forced me to run the fans on the highest setting at all times (yes, the CPU is burned-in, and I'm using a non-electrically-conductive thermal grease).
After three systems and two RMAs, I finally decided that Shuttle XPCs aren't for me.
SCO said they would have reported $7.4 million in earnings, if not for the $9 million payout to their lawyers.
Of course, if they hadn't paid a team of lawyers $9 million, then they wouldn't have had any net earnings to report (again).
I can certainly see where you and Phipps are coming from. To address your points: I find it easy to ignore the 'BSD is dead' blather because the trolls are just that: trolls. The claim is sufficiently unrealistic as to be inconsequential and ignorable in this forum. However, I find that many of the criticisms of BeOS are valid enough to be worth addressing. I don't argue for or against the BeOS, I just see a need to resolve some outstanding issues.
I've read the interview with Michael Phipps, and I can relate to his view of BeOS as an evolution of AmigaOS. Perhaps the fact that OpenBeOS runs on the M68030 and other non-x86 hardware is itself justification enough for the OBOS project. I can also sympathize with the desire to resurrect the spirit of AmigaOS in OpenBeOS. The OBOS team has a passion for a computing experience that transcends utilitarianism, and I respect that.
Years ago, Jean-Louis Gassee wrote about his motivation for creating the BeOS, and although it's not entirely different from Phipps', it's clear that they have some pretty different ideas of what the BeOS is about. Most notably, Phipps seems to be unconcerned (in the interview) with perpetuating BeOS's former identity as a media OS.
I've chosen to adhere to its "media OS" definition for a very important reason: if no one makes this distinction, then it's unclear whether we're discussing the need for BeOS as a media-oriented operating system, or the relevance of a BeOS-compatible operating system.
The various BeOS resurrection projects have different ideas about this, but imho the attempt at optimized multimedia performance was BeOS's most defining characteristic. As it stands, OpenBeOS appears to be destined for other things.
BeOS news always generates the same responses: it's unnecessary, it's unteneble, it falls short of expectations, etc. BeOS seems to receive more criticism than most other underdog OS's because--to some minds--its irrelevance has already been "proven" by Be, Inc's failure, while most others have still to define their niche--or are still too immature even to fail to compete.
At this point I don't know whether I consider BeOS to be worth defending. I guess it comes down to these questions: is BeOS fundamentally a more efficient platform for multimedia development? Is Linux architecture so different as to be incapable of matching BeOS performance in regards to MIDI performance, audio processing, nonlinear video editing, or 3D development? Is the performance gap substantial?
Even if the answer to all of these questions is "yes," surely it is not so when comparing 64-bit Linux to the BeOS (with the exception of MIDI performance). And if 32-bit Open BeOS is so difficult to realize, then how much moreso for a 64-bit BeOS?
BeOS has a potential market in that there is no other "multimedia OS" as defined by Be, and for that reason there are hangers-on. Sadly, the implications brought up in previous BeOS discussions suggest that BeOS itself fails as a multimedia OS. If anyone has any encouraging counterpoints, please share.
The T-Cube's dimensions are 52x52x45mm. That's pretty damn small!
For those outside Asia, comparing the T-Cube's size to an orange may be a little misleading, although it's apparent from the photo that the oranges are smaller than navel oranges. To further clarify the point of reference, djqed is right in that the oranges in the photos are mikan. 'Mikan' is the Japanese word for mandarin oranges, of which tangerines are one type (but the oranges in the photos aren't tangerines).
it only makes sense that they're running it somewhere.
;)
Well observed, CowboyNeal.
I wonder how many people are turned off of personal digital audio players by the compromised sound quality of lossy codecs? The price per megabyte isn't nearly so attractive for those that prefer lossless quality.
When MiniDisc was new (and expensive), manufacturers targeted audiophiles while the advertising emphasized custom mixes and sound quality (even though ATRAC is also lossy). With "MP3 players," the emphasis is usually on quantity, not quality. Being able to accomodate realtime filters like DFX might be a way to find some middle ground.
I realize that most consumers either tolerate or are unaware of the fidelity loss, hence the continued dominance of the now inferior MP3 format. Still, I think that in order for this market to grow more quickly, it should educate consumers about the options available to them with these devices: CD quality if you want it, or OGG (etc.) if you want more tracks per MB.
So, the Author may be dying because there are no new ideas, but (s)he will rise again one day.
/.er" is no exception, it would be completely unsurprising to learn that most of the community doesn't read technical papers dealing with research and theory.
Well observed. But, as you implied (if I understood correctly), the heraldic Author is not necessarily a new individual or gorup, since a genius work might lie in those all-but-forgotten stacks, waiting to be reinterpreted in a way that releases its potential.
Even if the works in question are not revolutionary, the evolutionary progress they demark may still be ignored or unappreciated.
I think a major reason that many of these papers remain undebated is that theory is not consistently emphasized in CS/CIS/CSE/etc. undergraduate programs, and I do not believe that the scientific nature of Computer and Information Science is emphasized early in the academic careers of undergrads by and large.
Symptoms of this problem have been discussed here before. Perhaps you'll agree that one dilemma is that undergrads who don't aspire to graduate school take a stiflingly pragmatic view of their coursework: many want the IT-oriented curriculum of a technical school, but don't want to compromise the quality of a university education. At universities, these students coexist in the department with MS- and PhD-minded students who have an academic interest in theory.
Suffice it to say that some students interpret the term "Computer Science" loosely, since in practice a CS student is unlikely to become a scientist. Since the "average
There are necessary and harmonious differences between those concerned with theory and those concerned with application, but the ambiguous definition of a student of Computer Science, and the overwhelmingly popular preference for application (IT), worries me insofar as it engenders a widespread equanimity in an educated community that feigns to live on the cutting edge.
It's as if they're actually trying to outdo themselves!
Adobe's Creative Suite is clearly a response to Macromedia's MX Studio suite. This is further evidenced by Adobe's new pricing structure, in which indivudal products cost more than previous releases, but one gets a slightly better deal by buying the suite.
The step up in copy protection is unwelcome, although no doubt overdue from Adobe's vantage point. This is not appear to be a time for creating new (unlicensed) users, but for leveraging all-or-nothing site licenses for most of their most popular products.
For years, Adobe's copy protection scheme has been failry minimal, even in high ticket products like the UNIX version of FrameMaker+SGML. This made it easier to believe that they turned a blind eye to piracy of their (comparitively lower-priced) flagship products, especially given the prevailing theory that Adobe creates brand loyalty by tolerating college-age pirates. If one plays the devil's advocate and assumes that this theory is sound, perhaps we can interpret the new activation scheme as a sign that Adobe feels sufficiently entrenched in enough markets (or feels enough pressure from Macromedia), that it's time for a more aggressive strategy, however unpopular the change may be among users and budget planners.
Suffice it to say that Adobe's protection methods were weak compared to certain other product lines with similar price points and consumer markets.
However, what I find inexcusable is the steep upward trend of its pricing structure, especially in regards to educational licenses. My former university's art department was underfunded enough that they were almost always using development software that was one or two generations behind. This move will surely stifle upgrade possibilities even further.
I don't doubt that Adobe is in a position to make certain demands. But, speculation aside, they've long struck me as a company that doesn't seem to fully grasp the impact their products can have on the desktop. I wish they'd use their powers more wisely.
Two years ago, my company cohosted an Adobe convention of sorts. At this time, Adobe was strongly pushing Acrobat; unless I missed the point, Acrobat is supposed to universalize platform-independent shared documents. And who can create these "platform-independent" documents? Users of Windows and Mac OS!
After the last presentation, I approached an Adobe marketing rep and frankly asked why they had dropped Linux support (they'd recently dropped plans to port one or more key products to Linux). The marketing person looked very annoyed, and refused to make eye contact. Her dismissive reply was, "You have to go where the market is." To me, this answer is nothing more than short-sighted bollocks, and I'm still flabbergasted by it. My response to Adobe now is this: 'You're Adobe. You fucking MAKE the market.' They have the power, but not the foresight. Just think how much more money shops would have to spend on Adobe products if they could run them on Linux.
We start with an inferior file system, and then mmmmmmmmm... we pour on the overhead. First, a creamy layer of laughable SQL database implementation... then we top it all off with a questionable application of a steaming hot technology. Ooh, baby it's like a huge performance boost in my mouth.
Eat it fast before the indices self-corrupt and you lose all your data relationships.
Mont Blanc is easily one of the most recognized names in fountain and rollerball pens today. However, my local independent pen merchant had only negative things to say about them when I dropped the name, and with a little more experience and research, I have to agree with his position: they're overrated.
For the money, Mont Blanc pens tend to be ridiculously fragile, and repair costs range from $35 to $400+ (USD). Sometimes leakage is a result of improper pen storage and/or maintenance, but with Mont Blancs the problem seems to be suspiciously epidemic.
Don't take my word for it, but don't blindly trust the name either. If you have access to a fine pen shop, spend some time learning about the subject, then do the comparitive research. Imho, if you really want a pen that will last a lifetime, Mont Blanc is not the one.
The 'BeOS is dead' talk reminds me of the 'UNIX is dead' rhetoric with which we're all familiar. While the historical significance of BeOS is dwarfed by that of UNIX, it's my hope that an open BeOS will mature and grow in popularity just as Linux developed as a free UNIX alternative that eventually outshown its forefathers.
OpenBSD and FreeBSD have great port systems. BeOS could have a port tree that's just as good, if not better. At this point Linux may have a software base to be reckoned with, but I'd reckon that most of that software could easily be ported to Be. If the software base were there, even via a Lin/Win compatibility layer, I'd readopt BeOS in an instant.
I think today marks the first time I've seen so many harsh (and baseless) criticisms of BeOS.
I think it's worth noting that most of the critics who've spoken up thus far do not appear to have ever used BeOS. That's really a shame, because it should appeal to both Mac OS and Linux users alike. The interface is considerably more responsive than Aqua and XFree86; and, of course, the multimedia performance is astounding. If Mac OS X had 40% more function and 40% form, you'd have BeOS.
BeOS is available for both PPC and x86 platforms.
BeOS sports the lowest MIDI latency figures I've ever seen.
BeOS has great workflow and an innovative desktop.
BeOS runs well on old hardware.
BeOS has great GL performance.
BeOS apps are surprisingly portable.
Coding for the BeOS is, as some have described it, 'a joy.'
BeOS runs popular UNIX command interpreters.
BeOS's windows can interact with one another in a way that no OS has ever achieved.
BeOS rules.
Factory workers aren't the only groups that are unionized. To my mind, we should evaluated the state of telecom and electrical workers' unions when considering whether the IT industry would benefit; especially considering the overlap with these industries that surely exists in some of our job descriptions.
Further, there's a wide berth of job functions within the IT industry. Assuming that unionization is a good idea for high tech workers in general, would the union umbrella cover everyone from data entry "specialists" to systems analysts? What I've read thus far suggests that most people are equating "high tech" with "software development"--is this really what we're discussing?
As for the argument that unionization would encourage international outsourcing, I think that this is a shortsighted prediction. While a cheaper IT workforce may be found in India (et al), it seems to me that there's already a great deal of malcontent among India's IT workers as it is, often due to low wages. Americans want to outsource high-tech development to India to cut costs, and high-tech professionals in India want to move to the West to make more money... hmmm. Sounds like a pretty transitory situation to me.
In the past, when blue collar workers en masse have lost their jobs due to American companies utilizing Mexican and East Asian labor, Americans rejoined with a zeal for products manufactured locally. Is it so strange to consider that such a scnario might replay in the case of American-made software?
Drop me a line if you can help:
tranquil_eye@yahoo.com