Okay, as someone who has chosen QA as a career, does all this damned paperwork actually improve the quality of the code? Really now, does it? Or is it just a way for non-technical people to pretend that they're engineers?
1. Assuming QA peole are not technical shows your ignorance.
2. Coders aren't engineers. If they were, then they would certainly understand why QA is valuable. Coders are the ones who like to call themselves engineers.
3. Proper QA not only decreases defects, but it lets you analyze why you got the defects you ended up with and the ones you eliminated.
In theory QA sounds great. In practice though QA does not produce anything other than process. The only reason QA reduces defects is because it reduces the rate at which all code gets written. It's like improving highway safety by removing the number of cars on the highways.
QA is not directly linked to process. I think you are confused. And in theory, outsourcing is a good idea too.
My company, like many others, is engaged in a strange boom/bust cycle. The boom cycle consists of rah-rah process improvements, efforts to improve CMM ratings, firing coders to make room for QA auditors, etc. Then the bust comes when we realize we haven't shippped a product in over two years, and the CEO has to descend from on high and handcuff the process police.
*sigh* You obviously work for a company that has no clue. From the sounds of it, it is no wonder you are jaded. The FIRST rule of process improvement is that it comes second to doing your business. The entire point of process improvement is to improve (duh) your processes and make things run more smoothly. If it does not, then you simply are not doing it right. The fact that you mention "auditors" and "process police" are sure signs that you aren't doing it right. Another obvious statement is that you go through cycles. If you are doing CMM correctly, then you follow the same processes regardless of what is going on. (and processes don't have to be rigid, de-moralizing things) The true test to whether you are doing it correctly is if you don't have to question it, it is just the way you do business. If you don't measure what you are doing, how do you ever know how well you are doing things?
Yet another statement that puts up red flags is that you think the CMM leads to better code. It does not, and it is not designed to. Anyone who tells you differently doesn't know what they are talking about. CMM is process management, pure and simple. It demonstrates how mature your organization is when it comes to software development processes. It has nothing to do with code. I'd suggest that if you are writing buggy code, it could be because you write buggy code. If it is for anything other than that reason, then you could actually look to process improvement to help you. If you are getting bad requirements, the CMM (level 2) states that you have to have a documented requirements management process. If there is no plan for the project, all the CMM states (L2 again) is that you have to create a project plan according to a documented procedure. It just points out that you need to have a plan on how to do various things. And if your senior management doesn't know what is going on with the project on a regular basis, then you sure as hell aren't doing CMM properly. If you haven't shipped a product in over 2 years (and you should have) then you have a lot of other problems besides CMM. Don't shoot the messenger.
Someday they will manage the technological feat of incorporating an FM tuner into the IPod. When I have the option of listening to NPR or my music collection I may switch to the IPod. Right now I will stick with my IRiver player.
Hmm. Maybe. But only if it is cheap and unobtrusive. Now if you could also RECORD radio on the iPod you'd be talking. But let's look a little further ahead - imagine an iPod with a satellite radio tuner and recording capabilities. Combine that with a car interface, and a home stereo docking station, and you are the bees knees!
I have said it for years, and I'll keep saying it.
Quality Assurance is not testing.
Testing is testing, and can run the gamut from unit to use case, from integration to system, from acceptance to beta. But QA is not testing. A lot of people call testing QA, but it is not the same thing.
Testing is what you do when you get the code. QA is everything that you do throughout the software development cycle to ensure that you have quality software. This can include code reviews, process audits, statistical analysis, etc.
I have been doing QA and testing for 11 years now. I have a degree in computer science, and I CHOSE to do this career. You may be able to get away with ignoring QA professionals and still produce high-quality software. But not all software projects are equal. QA is probably the most overlooked part of software development, testing the second.
Given the demonstrated electioneering competency of the Democrats and Republicans in recent years, I would say that the above is actually the most likely explanation.
I just heard a report on NPR this morning. A reporter went to a Bush appearance wearing a Kerry T-shirt. He was told by the secret service he would be arrested if he didn't leave. He went to a Kerry appearance wearing a Bush T-shirt. Nothing happened.
I thought - big whoop. They then went on to interview and describe many others who had been removed with the threat of JAIL from Bush appearances because they were "questionable". One woman had a small Kerry pin on her jacket. One guy had come from a Kerry rally and had a Kerry T-shirt on, which he had covered up with a long-sleeve shirt. At one high-school, several students were removed in tears by secret service officers for having Kerry items on. The list went on and on. One guy complied, and took off his Kerry item, and was still ordered to leave. Some people were put in jail for 2 hours, then charges dropped. The local police said they were following the orders of the secret service, and the secret service said they were following the orders of the white house.
So now you aren't allowed at a Bush event unless you support him? I guess it is all about the image of having support. It must be pretty easy to have a chanting mob of supporters if you pre-screen the crowd. It sounds kind of like a tent revival for an evangelical con-man.
I didn't see the report on NPRs website yet, so I can't link to it. But I did just hear it this morning on the way into work.
Is that they devalue the experience and skills necessary to do the job.
What job?
Seriously. I was recently interviewing for a position that required "networking" skills. Uhh, OK. How do you prepare for that? That is like saying you need "Unix" skills. I know networking basics, have set up my own network at home - but that is a far far cry from being a network admin. I went to a bookstore to see if any of the networking books might help give me a good solid overview of things so I could brush up. There were a ton of books, and I couldn't find one I thought would fit. They were either too specific, or too "dummy".
I am not sure where this book fits, but I don't think you can just write off books that give overviews of complex topics. Now if all there were out there were "dummy" books, then I can see why the professionals should care. But there definitely aren't. I am very pleased with the growth I have seen in the computer section at the local bookstores. The Linux section has beefed up quite nicely.:-)
Have there been any comparisons? Do we really need two fully scalable open-source video codecs?
That is true. So why was theora created? From TFA, they have been working on it for 3 years. From what I gather, theora is 2 years old.
"The technology - first conceived more than three years ago - is scheduled to go into beta within the next 12 to 15 months. "
I thought that Open Source code was about choice.
Because their codec work is funded and has been being under development for a while, it could actually be better. Why not lend a hand, which is all they are really asking.
Or under a real distro, apt-get install bittornado.
You and the parent to your post make my point EXACTLY. How do you install it on Linux? Well, if you are using Gentoo, blah blah. If you are using Debian, blah blah. If you are using $distro, $blah $blah. It may work, it may not. I have never used Gentoo, but I have used a variation of Debian. Apt-get didn't work all the time.
If you want to install something on Windows, you have basically 2 options - either put the files in some location and run them (i.e. no need to go through an installer), or run a setup program and it will install it for you. Only on rare occasions are there dependencies. On Linux it is "normal" to have problems installing things. I have been using it faithfully for 5 years, but even I can see that the Emperor has no clothes.
The problem is that North Korea is both dangerous and oppressive on a scale that makes Iraq look like Luxembourg by comparison.
Please refrain from referring to countries that most Americans don't even know is a country, let alone know anything about it.:-)
You mention many things that make N. Korea very dangerous. If they are training crackers, why would they use them against S. Korea? Wouldn't it make much more sense to attack the largest capitalist country? We have a crazy leader who would have ZERO clue how to fight an information war. They could attack the U.S. in this manner pretty easily. Physically attacking N. Korea would be insanity, as you pointed out they are a more militaristic nation than we are. While they have no real friends, they are kind of like the crazy guy that nobody messes with for fear of what they might do. How could you counter such an information attack? If this story is true, then their government is willing to fund cracking activities - while ours passes garbage like the DMCA that discourages anything remotely related to such activities. With the internet becoming a standard way of doing business, you can bet that it will be the platform for future wars in some way or another. I guess I should trademark the phrase "digital terrrism" now.
From TFA:
"High performance gaming on Linux certainly isn't for everyone. We spent weeks preparing for this analysis and we still ran into problems that we could not correct. So many times, we came to a solution for a problem only to find our Linux distribution had some files in a slightly different place or our file dependency tree was completely broken. These are the things that scare away people from Linux."
That is the 100% gospel truth. I couldn't have said it better myself. How then will the Linux community and game publishers overcome this (IMHO) enormous obstacle?
By having static packages with everything included in the package that you need to run.
I recently ran into a dependency (I think) problem when trying to install BitTornado. I had an older bittorrent client running fine, but my dsl modem was getting futzed up. I was just playing with bt, not doing any serious downloading or anything, just trying it out. So I wanted to download and try BitTornado because it supposedly had some built-in diagnostics. I could NOT get it working. Some dependency problem I think with wxPython. I got tired of F'ing around with it, trying to figure it out, so I fired up the old Windows box, downloaded and installed BitTornado with NO PROBLEMS!! Sometimes I have to just shake my head and wonder why it can't be this easy on Linux. OpenOffice.org seems to not have a problem including everything you need in one package. Why does EVERY other app on Linux? Why is it this still a problem? It has been a problem as long as I have been using Linux (RH5.x timeframe).
Why is it that whenever a story about Linux desktop application suites comes up, they always bring up OpenOffice and StarOffice? Are there not other good examples they can use?
You made a very important distinction in your question and you didn't even realize it. This was an article about Open Source Software, not Linux. They are not the same thing. There are plenty of great Linux-only apps worth mentioning, but this isn't about Linux vs Windows. It is about apps. It is about comparing OSS apps to Windows only apps.
That being said, there are some other apps worth mentioning. The Gimp is fantastic. Although experienced Photoshop users say it isn't a valid replacement, it does a lot more than most users need. It is available on Linux and Windows. There are office-type applications, as you have mentioned, and Open/Star Office usually take the lead. There are open messaging clients, but do those really bear mentioning? What other types of apps would you like to see mentioned? Browsers? Mozilla will always be more prevalent than Konqueror because Konq is Linux-only, and Moz is available on multiple platforms.
There are more solid apps that are Windows-only, that is just the facts. But how many of those do you use? If you want to know if there is an OSS alternative, I would suggest going to freshmeat and looking around, and poking around on sourceforge. One of the big problems with OSS is that until someone decides to create software X, it won't get created. Unless of course some company wants to create it, but then it probably won't be Open Source. There are some closed-source, windows-only, freely available apps out there that are fantastic. Irfanview comes to mind. I can only guess it is because the authors want to keep control of it. I would LOVE it if Irfanview would be available on Linux. But I can live without it on Linux by using other apps.
That's exactly how you win customers -- by alienating them.
When are people going to learn - you don't have to convince the sheep, just the shepherd.
How do you think MS got to where they are today? They side with the people calling the shots, who control thousands of desktops in companies. Or they control the source of the majority of computers - the big resellers. The end user does not matter, those who control the budgets and the supply matter.
This new Sanyo camera posted on gizmodo.com looks pretty nice.
Although I must say, I just found out that my wife is pregnant as well, and wondered about monitoring too. I think I am not going to do it. I will be freaked out enough, this being our first kid. I don't need to be checking every 10 minutes to make sure everything is OK. You know, people have been having babies for like 1000 years, long before technology came about. I think you can do OK without it.
It seems to me that there are no WMD's nor is there a WMD-program. So what about the un-accounted WMD's then? The whole disarmanent-process was a complicated affair that involved lots of people and thousands upon thousands of pages of documents. There are bound to be errors. Were there errors in Iraq's documentation? Propably. But that does not change the fact that no WMD's have been found.
I saw in some pro-Bush advertisement a picture of U.S. soldiers standing in front of crates full of what looked like shoulder fired missiles. The large caption said something like "And some say Iraq had no weapons"
My jaw hit the floor. They were a soverign nation, with an army. Of fucking COURSE they are going to have weapons! Hell, we probably sold them those rockets. The Bush supporters have gone from twisting the truth to twisting lies!
I remember when we invaded Iraq, because my wife and I had already had a weeklong trip planned for Paris. We had to decide whether we wanted to go or not, because the U.S. invaded Iraq on a Thursday, and we left for Paris on Sunday. We had to question whether it would be safe. It was of course, and we received zero ill treatment there. I got 10x worse treatment here at home, in O'hare airport. One NASCAR following, Bush-loving idiot at work asked me when I got back if I asked for any "Freedom Fries" while I was there, and I just stared blankly at him. He also asked if I got enough to eat, because the French eat just tiny little portions. (another blank stare)
But I digress... I remember, and some people seem to forget, that Saddam DID let weapons inspectors into Iraq. Yes, for years he dodged them, but when the threat was made by the U.S., he let them in. They didn't find anything, and before the inspectors could finalize their work and come out and officially say "Iraq has no WMD", Bush decided to invade. I remember specifically, he said the inspectors should leave because we were going in. And now the Bush supporters somehow forgot all of that and like to say that Saddam wasn't cooperating with UN weapons inspectors.
I just don't get it. Even after something like 9/11 (which again, has NOTHING to do with Iraq - even GW said so after 9/11) doesn't wake up the American people to the fact that we are not invulnerable. We can't go pushing around other countries without reprocussions. Bush had nothing to do with what caused 9/11, but he is setting us up for the next one. He is making sure that we are hated throughout the world, and that makes me nervous.
Kerry would not have put us in Iraq. If elected, he would be forced to clean up Bush's mess. He won't send us anywhere unless it is ABSOLUTELY necessary, and certainly not without following international law. Kerry has been to war, he knows what it is all about.
Bush is a psychotic cowboy who used his family's power to avoid going to war. He is a hypocritic, religious zealot. He will take us to war to settle his own scores, throwing the nation deeper and deeper into debt while he and his buddies get richer. He'll lie to the world about the reasons behind it, and dodge the questions when called on it.
If he did it once, he'll do it again. The ONLY thing that he has done for this country is taken us to war and doomed our economy. What else has he done? EVERYTHING has been centered around the war in Iraq. A war which HE CREATED. I actually gave him credit for the way he handled Afganistan, but once the saw the opportunity to attack Saddam, all his credibility went out the window.
I'm sorry, but the world will NOT end within the next four years if GWB gets re-elected.
The world ends for more and more American soldiers and their families each month because we are in Iraq. President Bush put us in Iraq.
Re:Corps will continue to rule, people are sheep..
on
Amateur Revolution?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Rap, for one, started as do-it-yourself music among lower-income black men from distressed urban neighborhoods, recorded by artists on inexpensive equipment and distributed on handmade tapes by local labels.
And it has now become the same money-hungry scheme that the rest of music is. Silver teeth, 80 gram bling, expensive cars, big houses, hoes, problems with the law, etc. I dont see the difference between rap stars and more traditional music. I give this one 0/100.
I was just thinking about this yesterday, when I didn't recognize 1 of the top 5 songs in the country. A radio show was listing them and playing clips, and I knew a couple of the names, but the songs didn't ring a bell. I thought they were all terrible, and I happen to like nearly all kinds of music including rap.
But here is my take on rap - it is in its "disco era". Think about it - Rock and Roll had its roots in the 50s. The 60s were rebellion, and what some consider to be the heart of rock music. The 70s started to slide, we then got Disco. The 80s was an attempt to rebound from that, and alternative music was born.
Rap has its roots in the early 80s. I would call the late 80s/early 90s the "60s" of rap. It really showed that it wasn't going away and made a mark on the world. But I think that we are now in the Disco age of rap, where it is all just posing and people trying to cash in. For the most part, the art and creativity is out the window. I just wonder what the "80s" of rap will bring.
But you cannot discount rap any longer. It truly comes from the grassroots and I think fits the intent of this article. Now the STATE of rap is questionable, but I don't think you can question its legitimacy and power.
A noncomm in Civil Affairs doesn't have a "muds-eye view" of the war at all. He may as well be back in Texas, for all the fighting he'll see.
Your points are taken, but I don't think he was claiming this.
Additionally, I am not just a soldier with a muds-eye view of the war, I am in Civil Affairs and as such, it is my job to be aware of all the events occurring in this country and specifically in my region.
I honestly read this as "I am NOT a soldier on the ground, I am over here and I have a much broader view of what is going on." Maybe the word "just" makes it seem otherwise, but I really think that he wasn't claiming to be an on-the-ground soldier.
People on the ground rarely have any idea of what's going on.
Ummm, did you even read the post you are replying to? Start at the beginning...
"Before I begin, let me state that I am a soldier currently deployed in Iraq, I am not an armchair quarterback. Nor am I some politically idealistic and naÃve young soldier, I am an old and seasoned Non-Commissioned Officer with nearly 20 years under my belt. Additionally, I am not just a soldier with a muds-eye view of the war, I am in Civil Affairs and as such, it is my job to be aware of all the events occurring in this country and specifically in my region."
People there sure as hell have a better idea of what is going on instead of slovenly nerds jerking off to anime half a world away.
Eh? I exclusively use Linux, as do many people I know and have worked with, and I assume a great deal of the/. crowd too.
Why would anybody find that hard to believe?
Well, then you aren't really a Windows user now, are you? I was referring to people that see Linux as some kind of unusable, command-line only, archaic OS. There are people out there who think this, and no, they have never actually USED it. I work in a company that is all the way up MS's butt, just like a lot of companies.
I am not a Linux fanatic. I have given out a few Knoppix CDs in my time, but I don't try to convert anyone. I don't believe everything should be OSS, but I don't like the way a lot of proprietary companies do business.
I use OSS and propietary software.
I've developed both.
I'm not a disciple of either.
They both have their place.
As do I, although most of what I use is on Linux. That may be hard for Windows people to believe, but it is true. I fire up the Windows box when I want to render videos (tmpgenc) or burn DVDs. That is where the DVD burner is installed. (Although k3b is AWESOME). I wish that Irfanview was available on Linux, it just rocks. I haven't found anything I like as much on Linux.
As a wise man once said, can't we all just get along?
Well, that is the kicker. We should all just be able to get along, but then you get proprietary software companies (no names mentioned) that have a heavily vested interest in NOT getting along. The OSS community is more than willing to just get along, but all parties have to be willing.
Isn't it? Well, I should say isn't it when you know 99% of all customers will install a pirated copy of Windows?
Whoa. That is a huge assumption. What about people who already own a copy, and just want a new computer? Should they be forced to purchase yet another OS? The key word here is "forced". They don't have a choice in the matter if they want to buy a pre-built system.
In a way that is similar to selling guns without checking buyers' background. Sorry, I didn't know!
Of course, resellers and h/w makers are not supposed to engage in anti-piracy activities on behalf of Microsoft, it's just that they're knowingly aiding end users who have no attention of buying licensed software.
That is a bit sneaky.
Do you work for the RIAA? Everyone is a software pirate by default?
>Shouldn't resellers be able to do whatever they want? Isn't the opposite - forcing resellers to install Windows - a much worse scenario?
Yes, they should be allowed to do whatever they want, but in a way they're condoning piracy so it's not exactly a noble thing to do - if you see someone being mugged, turn your head away.
Why is it any of the reseller's business what the consumer does?
Why is installing Windows a much worse scenario?
Especially with the new low-cost Windows, I think it's well worth the money - it works with all/most h/w out there, it's self-maintaining, requires virtually no skills, it's well documented and lets h/w makers concentrate on manufacturing, marketing or whatever makes most profit.
Note that I'm not saying Windows is better or that they shouldn't bundle Linux too. My point is simply that there's nothing wrong with bundling Windows - as you say, they should be able to do whatever they want (as long as it's legal).
The resellers should be given the FAIR option of bundling Windows or not. If someone wants to buy a PC without windows, they should be able to. And the reseller should be allowed to provide it. That is not what happens though. Microsoft cuts deals with them that prevent them from doing anything else. Bundling Windows isn't wrong - forcing them to bundle Windows is wrong.
>Linux simply points out the ridiculous nature of Microsoft's licensing model.
I don't understand.
Bundling SuSe or Red Hat Linux probably costs the same as this el-cheapo Windows. Yeah, you don't pay for the software, you can make copies, etc., but the truth is most people don't give a damn. They just want to get to Yahoo, read email and browse pr0n, all one needs is to download OpenOffice and Firefox for Windows and there he goes!
Microsoft may as well next year make that licensing fee become "subscription fee" and then what? Will you still call the model ridiculous?
Microsoft says that you have to have a fully licensed copy of Windows for every computer you own. To me, and many others, that is stupid. I should be able to install one copy on all machines I own. Nowadays, houses have several computers. Do you remember the story where Microsoft's license agreement with schools charged them a license fee for every computer - regardless of if it had Windows on it or not. That is stupid. The only reason they can get away with it is because they are Microsoft, and they aren't accountable to anyone. Even the Department of Justice. It is sad, and I will chuckle when it comes around.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Assuming QA peole are not technical shows your ignorance.
2. Coders aren't engineers. If they were, then they would certainly understand why QA is valuable. Coders are the ones who like to call themselves engineers.
3. Proper QA not only decreases defects, but it lets you analyze why you got the defects you ended up with and the ones you eliminated.
In theory QA sounds great. In practice though QA does not produce anything other than process. The only reason QA reduces defects is because it reduces the rate at which all code gets written. It's like improving highway safety by removing the number of cars on the highways.
QA is not directly linked to process. I think you are confused. And in theory, outsourcing is a good idea too.
My company, like many others, is engaged in a strange boom/bust cycle. The boom cycle consists of rah-rah process improvements, efforts to improve CMM ratings, firing coders to make room for QA auditors, etc. Then the bust comes when we realize we haven't shippped a product in over two years, and the CEO has to descend from on high and handcuff the process police.
*sigh* You obviously work for a company that has no clue. From the sounds of it, it is no wonder you are jaded. The FIRST rule of process improvement is that it comes second to doing your business. The entire point of process improvement is to improve (duh) your processes and make things run more smoothly. If it does not, then you simply are not doing it right. The fact that you mention "auditors" and "process police" are sure signs that you aren't doing it right. Another obvious statement is that you go through cycles. If you are doing CMM correctly, then you follow the same processes regardless of what is going on. (and processes don't have to be rigid, de-moralizing things) The true test to whether you are doing it correctly is if you don't have to question it, it is just the way you do business. If you don't measure what you are doing, how do you ever know how well you are doing things?
Yet another statement that puts up red flags is that you think the CMM leads to better code. It does not, and it is not designed to. Anyone who tells you differently doesn't know what they are talking about. CMM is process management, pure and simple. It demonstrates how mature your organization is when it comes to software development processes. It has nothing to do with code. I'd suggest that if you are writing buggy code, it could be because you write buggy code. If it is for anything other than that reason, then you could actually look to process improvement to help you. If you are getting bad requirements, the CMM (level 2) states that you have to have a documented requirements management process. If there is no plan for the project, all the CMM states (L2 again) is that you have to create a project plan according to a documented procedure. It just points out that you need to have a plan on how to do various things. And if your senior management doesn't know what is going on with the project on a regular basis, then you sure as hell aren't doing CMM properly. If you haven't shipped a product in over 2 years (and you should have) then you have a lot of other problems besides CMM. Don't shoot the messenger.
If Google did not exist, it would be necessary to create it.
Hmm. Maybe. But only if it is cheap and unobtrusive. Now if you could also RECORD radio on the iPod you'd be talking. But let's look a little further ahead - imagine an iPod with a satellite radio tuner and recording capabilities. Combine that with a car interface, and a home stereo docking station, and you are the bees knees!
Quality Assurance is not testing.
Testing is testing, and can run the gamut from unit to use case, from integration to system, from acceptance to beta. But QA is not testing. A lot of people call testing QA, but it is not the same thing.
Testing is what you do when you get the code. QA is everything that you do throughout the software development cycle to ensure that you have quality software. This can include code reviews, process audits, statistical analysis, etc.
I have been doing QA and testing for 11 years now. I have a degree in computer science, and I CHOSE to do this career. You may be able to get away with ignoring QA professionals and still produce high-quality software. But not all software projects are equal. QA is probably the most overlooked part of software development, testing the second.
Experience in what? Network Administration? Basic networking? Token ring? Ethernet? Cisco router configuration? Setting up a network from scratch? Maintaining a network? Windows? Unix? Mainframe? Wireless?
Saying you want "networking skills" is like saying you need someone with "programming skills".
Yes, it will return "Stop being an idiot"
I just heard a report on NPR this morning. A reporter went to a Bush appearance wearing a Kerry T-shirt. He was told by the secret service he would be arrested if he didn't leave. He went to a Kerry appearance wearing a Bush T-shirt. Nothing happened.
I thought - big whoop. They then went on to interview and describe many others who had been removed with the threat of JAIL from Bush appearances because they were "questionable". One woman had a small Kerry pin on her jacket. One guy had come from a Kerry rally and had a Kerry T-shirt on, which he had covered up with a long-sleeve shirt. At one high-school, several students were removed in tears by secret service officers for having Kerry items on. The list went on and on. One guy complied, and took off his Kerry item, and was still ordered to leave. Some people were put in jail for 2 hours, then charges dropped. The local police said they were following the orders of the secret service, and the secret service said they were following the orders of the white house.
So now you aren't allowed at a Bush event unless you support him? I guess it is all about the image of having support. It must be pretty easy to have a chanting mob of supporters if you pre-screen the crowd. It sounds kind of like a tent revival for an evangelical con-man.
I didn't see the report on NPRs website yet, so I can't link to it. But I did just hear it this morning on the way into work.
What job?
Seriously. I was recently interviewing for a position that required "networking" skills. Uhh, OK. How do you prepare for that? That is like saying you need "Unix" skills. I know networking basics, have set up my own network at home - but that is a far far cry from being a network admin. I went to a bookstore to see if any of the networking books might help give me a good solid overview of things so I could brush up. There were a ton of books, and I couldn't find one I thought would fit. They were either too specific, or too "dummy".
I am not sure where this book fits, but I don't think you can just write off books that give overviews of complex topics. Now if all there were out there were "dummy" books, then I can see why the professionals should care. But there definitely aren't. I am very pleased with the growth I have seen in the computer section at the local bookstores. The Linux section has beefed up quite nicely.
That is true. So why was theora created? From TFA, they have been working on it for 3 years. From what I gather, theora is 2 years old.
I thought that Open Source code was about choice. Because their codec work is funded and has been being under development for a while, it could actually be better. Why not lend a hand, which is all they are really asking.You and the parent to your post make my point EXACTLY. How do you install it on Linux? Well, if you are using Gentoo, blah blah. If you are using Debian, blah blah. If you are using $distro, $blah $blah. It may work, it may not. I have never used Gentoo, but I have used a variation of Debian. Apt-get didn't work all the time.
If you want to install something on Windows, you have basically 2 options - either put the files in some location and run them (i.e. no need to go through an installer), or run a setup program and it will install it for you. Only on rare occasions are there dependencies. On Linux it is "normal" to have problems installing things. I have been using it faithfully for 5 years, but even I can see that the Emperor has no clothes.
Please refrain from referring to countries that most Americans don't even know is a country, let alone know anything about it. :-)
You mention many things that make N. Korea very dangerous. If they are training crackers, why would they use them against S. Korea? Wouldn't it make much more sense to attack the largest capitalist country? We have a crazy leader who would have ZERO clue how to fight an information war. They could attack the U.S. in this manner pretty easily. Physically attacking N. Korea would be insanity, as you pointed out they are a more militaristic nation than we are. While they have no real friends, they are kind of like the crazy guy that nobody messes with for fear of what they might do. How could you counter such an information attack? If this story is true, then their government is willing to fund cracking activities - while ours passes garbage like the DMCA that discourages anything remotely related to such activities. With the internet becoming a standard way of doing business, you can bet that it will be the platform for future wars in some way or another. I guess I should trademark the phrase "digital terrrism" now.
By having static packages with everything included in the package that you need to run.
I recently ran into a dependency (I think) problem when trying to install BitTornado. I had an older bittorrent client running fine, but my dsl modem was getting futzed up. I was just playing with bt, not doing any serious downloading or anything, just trying it out. So I wanted to download and try BitTornado because it supposedly had some built-in diagnostics. I could NOT get it working. Some dependency problem I think with wxPython. I got tired of F'ing around with it, trying to figure it out, so I fired up the old Windows box, downloaded and installed BitTornado with NO PROBLEMS!! Sometimes I have to just shake my head and wonder why it can't be this easy on Linux. OpenOffice.org seems to not have a problem including everything you need in one package. Why does EVERY other app on Linux? Why is it this still a problem? It has been a problem as long as I have been using Linux (RH5.x timeframe).
You made a very important distinction in your question and you didn't even realize it. This was an article about Open Source Software, not Linux. They are not the same thing. There are plenty of great Linux-only apps worth mentioning, but this isn't about Linux vs Windows. It is about apps. It is about comparing OSS apps to Windows only apps.
That being said, there are some other apps worth mentioning. The Gimp is fantastic. Although experienced Photoshop users say it isn't a valid replacement, it does a lot more than most users need. It is available on Linux and Windows. There are office-type applications, as you have mentioned, and Open/Star Office usually take the lead. There are open messaging clients, but do those really bear mentioning? What other types of apps would you like to see mentioned? Browsers? Mozilla will always be more prevalent than Konqueror because Konq is Linux-only, and Moz is available on multiple platforms.
There are more solid apps that are Windows-only, that is just the facts. But how many of those do you use? If you want to know if there is an OSS alternative, I would suggest going to freshmeat and looking around, and poking around on sourceforge. One of the big problems with OSS is that until someone decides to create software X, it won't get created. Unless of course some company wants to create it, but then it probably won't be Open Source. There are some closed-source, windows-only, freely available apps out there that are fantastic. Irfanview comes to mind. I can only guess it is because the authors want to keep control of it. I would LOVE it if Irfanview would be available on Linux. But I can live without it on Linux by using other apps.
When are people going to learn - you don't have to convince the sheep, just the shepherd.
How do you think MS got to where they are today? They side with the people calling the shots, who control thousands of desktops in companies. Or they control the source of the majority of computers - the big resellers. The end user does not matter, those who control the budgets and the supply matter.
I think he shreds those up, and rolls them in stock certificates that MS has forced out of business or bought.
This new Sanyo camera posted on gizmodo.com looks pretty nice. Although I must say, I just found out that my wife is pregnant as well, and wondered about monitoring too. I think I am not going to do it. I will be freaked out enough, this being our first kid. I don't need to be checking every 10 minutes to make sure everything is OK. You know, people have been having babies for like 1000 years, long before technology came about. I think you can do OK without it.
I saw in some pro-Bush advertisement a picture of U.S. soldiers standing in front of crates full of what looked like shoulder fired missiles. The large caption said something like "And some say Iraq had no weapons"
My jaw hit the floor. They were a soverign nation, with an army. Of fucking COURSE they are going to have weapons! Hell, we probably sold them those rockets. The Bush supporters have gone from twisting the truth to twisting lies!
I remember when we invaded Iraq, because my wife and I had already had a weeklong trip planned for Paris. We had to decide whether we wanted to go or not, because the U.S. invaded Iraq on a Thursday, and we left for Paris on Sunday. We had to question whether it would be safe. It was of course, and we received zero ill treatment there. I got 10x worse treatment here at home, in O'hare airport. One NASCAR following, Bush-loving idiot at work asked me when I got back if I asked for any "Freedom Fries" while I was there, and I just stared blankly at him. He also asked if I got enough to eat, because the French eat just tiny little portions. (another blank stare)
But I digress... I remember, and some people seem to forget, that Saddam DID let weapons inspectors into Iraq. Yes, for years he dodged them, but when the threat was made by the U.S., he let them in. They didn't find anything, and before the inspectors could finalize their work and come out and officially say "Iraq has no WMD", Bush decided to invade. I remember specifically, he said the inspectors should leave because we were going in. And now the Bush supporters somehow forgot all of that and like to say that Saddam wasn't cooperating with UN weapons inspectors.
I just don't get it. Even after something like 9/11 (which again, has NOTHING to do with Iraq - even GW said so after 9/11) doesn't wake up the American people to the fact that we are not invulnerable. We can't go pushing around other countries without reprocussions. Bush had nothing to do with what caused 9/11, but he is setting us up for the next one. He is making sure that we are hated throughout the world, and that makes me nervous.
Kerry would not have put us in Iraq. If elected, he would be forced to clean up Bush's mess. He won't send us anywhere unless it is ABSOLUTELY necessary, and certainly not without following international law. Kerry has been to war, he knows what it is all about.
Bush is a psychotic cowboy who used his family's power to avoid going to war. He is a hypocritic, religious zealot. He will take us to war to settle his own scores, throwing the nation deeper and deeper into debt while he and his buddies get richer. He'll lie to the world about the reasons behind it, and dodge the questions when called on it.
If he did it once, he'll do it again. The ONLY thing that he has done for this country is taken us to war and doomed our economy. What else has he done? EVERYTHING has been centered around the war in Iraq. A war which HE CREATED. I actually gave him credit for the way he handled Afganistan, but once the saw the opportunity to attack Saddam, all his credibility went out the window.
The world ends for more and more American soldiers and their families each month because we are in Iraq. President Bush put us in Iraq.
And it has now become the same money-hungry scheme that the rest of music is. Silver teeth, 80 gram bling, expensive cars, big houses, hoes, problems with the law, etc. I dont see the difference between rap stars and more traditional music. I give this one 0/100.
I was just thinking about this yesterday, when I didn't recognize 1 of the top 5 songs in the country. A radio show was listing them and playing clips, and I knew a couple of the names, but the songs didn't ring a bell. I thought they were all terrible, and I happen to like nearly all kinds of music including rap.
But here is my take on rap - it is in its "disco era". Think about it - Rock and Roll had its roots in the 50s. The 60s were rebellion, and what some consider to be the heart of rock music. The 70s started to slide, we then got Disco. The 80s was an attempt to rebound from that, and alternative music was born.
Rap has its roots in the early 80s. I would call the late 80s/early 90s the "60s" of rap. It really showed that it wasn't going away and made a mark on the world. But I think that we are now in the Disco age of rap, where it is all just posing and people trying to cash in. For the most part, the art and creativity is out the window. I just wonder what the "80s" of rap will bring.
But you cannot discount rap any longer. It truly comes from the grassroots and I think fits the intent of this article. Now the STATE of rap is questionable, but I don't think you can question its legitimacy and power.
Your points are taken, but I don't think he was claiming this.
I honestly read this as "I am NOT a soldier on the ground, I am over here and I have a much broader view of what is going on." Maybe the word "just" makes it seem otherwise, but I really think that he wasn't claiming to be an on-the-ground soldier.
Ummm, did you even read the post you are replying to? Start at the beginning...
People there sure as hell have a better idea of what is going on instead of slovenly nerds jerking off to anime half a world away.
Well, then you aren't really a Windows user now, are you? I was referring to people that see Linux as some kind of unusable, command-line only, archaic OS. There are people out there who think this, and no, they have never actually USED it. I work in a company that is all the way up MS's butt, just like a lot of companies.
I am not a Linux fanatic. I have given out a few Knoppix CDs in my time, but I don't try to convert anyone. I don't believe everything should be OSS, but I don't like the way a lot of proprietary companies do business.
As do I, although most of what I use is on Linux. That may be hard for Windows people to believe, but it is true. I fire up the Windows box when I want to render videos (tmpgenc) or burn DVDs. That is where the DVD burner is installed. (Although k3b is AWESOME). I wish that Irfanview was available on Linux, it just rocks. I haven't found anything I like as much on Linux.
As a wise man once said, can't we all just get along?
Well, that is the kicker. We should all just be able to get along, but then you get proprietary software companies (no names mentioned) that have a heavily vested interest in NOT getting along. The OSS community is more than willing to just get along, but all parties have to be willing.
Isn't it? Well, I should say isn't it when you know 99% of all customers will install a pirated copy of Windows?
Whoa. That is a huge assumption. What about people who already own a copy, and just want a new computer? Should they be forced to purchase yet another OS? The key word here is "forced". They don't have a choice in the matter if they want to buy a pre-built system.
In a way that is similar to selling guns without checking buyers' background. Sorry, I didn't know! Of course, resellers and h/w makers are not supposed to engage in anti-piracy activities on behalf of Microsoft, it's just that they're knowingly aiding end users who have no attention of buying licensed software. That is a bit sneaky.
Do you work for the RIAA? Everyone is a software pirate by default?
Yes, they should be allowed to do whatever they want, but in a way they're condoning piracy so it's not exactly a noble thing to do - if you see someone being mugged, turn your head away.
Why is it any of the reseller's business what the consumer does?
Why is installing Windows a much worse scenario? Especially with the new low-cost Windows, I think it's well worth the money - it works with all/most h/w out there, it's self-maintaining, requires virtually no skills, it's well documented and lets h/w makers concentrate on manufacturing, marketing or whatever makes most profit. Note that I'm not saying Windows is better or that they shouldn't bundle Linux too. My point is simply that there's nothing wrong with bundling Windows - as you say, they should be able to do whatever they want (as long as it's legal).
The resellers should be given the FAIR option of bundling Windows or not. If someone wants to buy a PC without windows, they should be able to. And the reseller should be allowed to provide it. That is not what happens though. Microsoft cuts deals with them that prevent them from doing anything else. Bundling Windows isn't wrong - forcing them to bundle Windows is wrong.
I don't understand. Bundling SuSe or Red Hat Linux probably costs the same as this el-cheapo Windows. Yeah, you don't pay for the software, you can make copies, etc., but the truth is most people don't give a damn. They just want to get to Yahoo, read email and browse pr0n, all one needs is to download OpenOffice and Firefox for Windows and there he goes! Microsoft may as well next year make that licensing fee become "subscription fee" and then what? Will you still call the model ridiculous?
Microsoft says that you have to have a fully licensed copy of Windows for every computer you own. To me, and many others, that is stupid. I should be able to install one copy on all machines I own. Nowadays, houses have several computers. Do you remember the story where Microsoft's license agreement with schools charged them a license fee for every computer - regardless of if it had Windows on it or not. That is stupid. The only reason they can get away with it is because they are Microsoft, and they aren't accountable to anyone. Even the Department of Justice. It is sad, and I will chuckle when it comes around.