DOS -> Windows (which you mention) Windows -> Windows95 Windows95 -> ActiveDesktop (on '95 or '98) Windows95 -> WindowsNT (largely the same, but that only serves to confuse when they aren't, such as "My Computer") WindowsNT -> Windows 2000 (I haven't used it, but the screenshots look pretty different) --
I've never had such trouble making myself understood.
1) I'm NOT saying people are stupid. I'm giving them plenty of "credit" (to quote another response to my post. 2) I'm NOT saying "everyone needs to be an Internet God like me and learn every obscure (or even popular) command I know". I AM saying that there ARE CURRENT AOL customers who are in the dark because of AOL's dumbing down METHODOLOGY.
I dont' give a flying fig what program(s)/user interface Joe Blow uses to access the Internet. What I DO give a flying fig about is trying to re-educate people who have been lied to by the current provider (e.g. AOL). For instance, people who assume (because AOL lets them assume) that the entire world can see.art files. If AOL wants to use this format, that's fine. But if an AOL user wants to post a pic to a public forum, then AOL has to be ready to explain to that user how to do it in a STANDARD way. --
Palm Prez: Hey, Sales, how are we doing? Palm Sales: Through the roof boss. Our sales outstrip all other PDA's put together. Palm Prez: That's great news. Hey Marketing, how can we keep this trend going? Palm Mark: I have a great idea! What we're doing now is working so well, it obviously needs to be changed! Let's do what our weakest competitor is doing and slow down our software while making the batteries wear out faster! It's working for Microsoft! --
There is a difference between "easy for newbies to learn" and "dumbed down tar pit". AOL doesn't provide education for the eventual graduation from AOL to the "real" Internet. AOL preys on new users and then purposefully keeps them clueless in order to keep them corralled (or however you spell that).
As a thought experiment, imagine an ISP that is as easy to use as AOL (is purported to be). Now imagine that ISP had "cyber" training centers for learning to to use Internet-standard tools (irc, ftp, web, etc). The training would also include setting up PPP on your computer, some basic net safety (firewalling, anti-virus, etc). Does this sound good? Does it sound like AOL? --
Ye gods, I guess anything PC is insightful these days.
"Not everyone is as savvy as your average/. reader. Many, many people need AOL (or something like AOL) to get online."
How about:
Not everyone is as savvy as your average cookbook reader. Many, many people need McDonald's (or something like McDonald's) to get their daily nutrition.
See how dumb that argument is? Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether AOL == online (not to mention McDonald's == nutrition), we still have the question of the analog to the "nice restaurant" ISP. Or, for that matter, the equivalent of the grocery store ISP. --
"Powerusers". As in "users who want power". As in "the Mac doesn't give them that". As in "that's exactly what I said two comments ago."
I'm well aware of what different kinds of multitasking are and I'm also aware how this can be messed up by an application. My POINT is that on an OS that is ACTUALLY powerful (not to mention modern), you don't have these issues. Saying "But OS X..." is no different than saying "The next version of NT...". --
IIRC, in Starship Troopers the MI (Mobile Infantry) was able (nay, required) to field strip their own suits. How many of today's soldiers can field strip a palmtop? --
Your response to poor UI metaphors is "use the cryptic command keys" (non-easy, non-intuitive and arguably non-clean) OR aliases and name changes that don't really fix the metaphor: I want the disk OUT of the computer, not IN another icon. Again, easy, intuitive and clean are right out the door
You claim a strike against me for MacOS not being preemptively multitasking--actually, that's exactly my point: no power. Also non-easy for people used to REAL power.
As for "something more recent than System 6". I'm commenting on OS 8.6. "OS9 does away with many of..." blah. Windows2000 does away with many of the problems that plague NT4--and introduces many others.
In fact, I often can't remember if I'm talking to a MacFreak or Microsoftie. Both of them claim jam yesterday and jam tomorrow, but never jam today. --
Why would this be against the FSF's philosophy? The main philosophy they have is "you should be able to do what you want with your software". If what you want is to use high-grade software ports to teach yourself programming (a particular platform) then more power to you. The only requirement made of you is that IF you share the "physical" fruits of your labor (the software), please also share the knowledge you gained creating it. --
I love it when someone tries to defend the braindead Mac. It gives me a chance to bring out my favorite examples:
1) Eject a disk. There are two ways. a) The system menu. OK, I guess I can see that. b) Pull the disk to the trash can. "But," says the new user, "won't that DELETE my disk?" No, it's just a bad metaphor. "Well, OK," says he, "but I'd feel safer if I could just eject it with a button--you know like on a PC." Macs don't have an eject button. Cross off "clean", "intuitive", AND "powerful" for these two major boo-boos.
2) Multitasking. People keep telling me that MacOS (pre-emptively) multitasks. Maybe so--I've seen multiple processes running (say, playing a CD and browsing at the same time). OTOH, why do modal dialogs keep other programs from being accessible? Cross off "easy" and put another line throught "powerful". --
The military is a machine. Soldiers are the "commodity components". Giving soldiers expensive, breakage-prone, training-intensive, high-tech gear is going to have on of two effects:
1) Raise the cost of running the military without substantially raising it's effectiveness. Think of the people you knew in high school who were joining the Army because they didn't know what else to do. Now give that person a palmtop, a GPS and a 24 hours to find their ass. Come pick up any pieces that remain tomorrow.
2) Give the military a false sense of unbeatability: "Gentlemen, we are the best-equipped fighting force in the world." Yeah, until 3 guys with AK-47s in Jeeps come knock down your satellite transceivers. When your GPS-dependent droids don't know which way is north, it's unlikely they'll come running to your aid.
It has been proven over and over again (from the Goths to the American Revolution to Vietnam) that distributed, guerilla-style fighting is less fragile (and thus usually more successful) than centralized, top-down fighting. This money could be better spent teaching soldiers how to navigate via astronomy (with a homemade sextant) and some memory-enhancement and "fast math" skills (to replace the palmtop). --
Actually, I think this issue has already come up. In Heinlein's book "Stranger in a Strange Land" mention is made of a "hydraulic bed". From the description, this bed contains water and is used to gently float a patient to lessen chance of bed sores and cause less pain to burn victims. This book was published in the late 1950's before waterbeds (which is clearly what the hydraulic bed is) were invented.
I'm going to need someone to help out with the story from this point on, though because it's hazy in my mind. All I can remember is that someone tried to patent "The Valentine Michael Smith Water Nest" or something like that, and Heinlein won some kind of legal challenge against it. What I don't remember was whether this was based on the prior art aspect of the waterbed itself, or some kind of copyright on the name. --
My company has a Motif product. When I ported to Linux, I used LessTif. Using LessTif nearly everything compiled out of the box and most things ran correctly. After getting the non-Motif-related bugs out of the way, I only ended up with about 4 bugs that I can blame on LessTif itself. I definitely recommend using LessTif if you need to use Motif on Linux. --
There is plenty of software that will run on one Linux system but not another. Why do you think there are separate java binaries for glibc and libc5 systems?
I don't know about your system, but my RedHat 6.1 machine has something called "compat-libs" which seem to be libc5 stuff. So my machine will run old AND new stuff. Of course, an old machine won't run new stuff, but that's no more "fragmented" than any other OS. It's just the nature of progress. --
"...there is something 'mindless,' 'isolating,' 'lonely' and 'arrogant' about reading online."
No, that's what it's like to be a librarian.
Seriously, is this the dumbest things you've ever heard or what? I don't read for companionship--I do it for pleasure and/or information. So what am I supposed to do? Drive to DC every time I need to look something up at the L of C? --
Could you put some meet on those claims? For instance, "[y]ou want proprietary software, use the GPL." Please give a definition of "proprietary" and a feature of GPL that matches that definition. --
He's apologized, it's over. Although it would probably be nice if he posted it on his site and sent a retraction (or at least an explanation) to the sites he contacted. --
1) Be made mistake. 2) You found the mistake and a) posted it on your news site b) posted it on another news site known for it's hasty reactions c) THEN contacted BeOS to get more information 3) Someone questioned whether you ought to contact Be 4) You claimed you "made it clear" that you had contacted Be 5) When someone notes that you didn't "make it clear" you admit you hadn't mentioned that when you posted the story
I think the REAL point here is that you haven't read the Advocacy-HOWTO.
Free Software is about love (i.e. sharing) or, at worst, tough love (I'll play nice with you if you play nice with me). All you've done is instill fear in current and future GPL users. They'll be careful all right--careful to avoid the GPL. --
Slashdot Mirror
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access / on this server.
--
DOS -> Windows (which you mention)
Windows -> Windows95
Windows95 -> ActiveDesktop (on '95 or '98)
Windows95 -> WindowsNT (largely the same, but that only serves to confuse when they aren't, such as "My Computer")
WindowsNT -> Windows 2000 (I haven't used it, but the screenshots look pretty different)
--
I've never had such trouble making myself understood.
.art files. If AOL wants to use this format, that's fine. But if an AOL user wants to post a pic to a public forum, then AOL has to be ready to explain to that user how to do it in a STANDARD way.
1) I'm NOT saying people are stupid. I'm giving them plenty of "credit" (to quote another response to my post.
2) I'm NOT saying "everyone needs to be an Internet God like me and learn every obscure (or even popular) command I know".
I AM saying that there ARE CURRENT AOL customers who are in the dark because of AOL's dumbing down METHODOLOGY.
I dont' give a flying fig what program(s)/user interface Joe Blow uses to access the Internet. What I DO give a flying fig about is trying to re-educate people who have been lied to by the current provider (e.g. AOL). For instance, people who assume (because AOL lets them assume) that the entire world can see
--
Palm Prez: Hey, Sales, how are we doing?
Palm Sales: Through the roof boss. Our sales outstrip all other PDA's put together.
Palm Prez: That's great news. Hey Marketing, how can we keep this trend going?
Palm Mark: I have a great idea! What we're doing now is working so well, it obviously needs to be changed! Let's do what our weakest competitor is doing and slow down our software while making the batteries wear out faster! It's working for Microsoft!
--
I already corrected that mistake in the story.
Ummm...no you haven't. Look again. Or are you not really heunique.
--
There is a difference between "easy for newbies to learn" and "dumbed down tar pit". AOL doesn't provide education for the eventual graduation from AOL to the "real" Internet. AOL preys on new users and then purposefully keeps them clueless in order to keep them corralled (or however you spell that).
As a thought experiment, imagine an ISP that is as easy to use as AOL (is purported to be). Now imagine that ISP had "cyber" training centers for learning to to use Internet-standard tools (irc, ftp, web, etc). The training would also include setting up PPP on your computer, some basic net safety (firewalling, anti-virus, etc). Does this sound good? Does it sound like AOL?
--
Ye gods, I guess anything PC is insightful these days.
/. reader. Many, many people need AOL (or something like AOL) to get online."
"Not everyone is as savvy as your average
How about:
Not everyone is as savvy as your average cookbook reader. Many, many people need McDonald's (or something like McDonald's) to get their daily nutrition.
See how dumb that argument is? Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether AOL == online (not to mention McDonald's == nutrition), we still have the question of the analog to the "nice restaurant" ISP. Or, for that matter, the equivalent of the grocery store ISP.
--
"This [is] a bit annoying for powerusers."
"Powerusers". As in "users who want power". As in "the Mac doesn't give them that". As in "that's exactly what I said two comments ago."
I'm well aware of what different kinds of multitasking are and I'm also aware how this can be messed up by an application. My POINT is that on an OS that is ACTUALLY powerful (not to mention modern), you don't have these issues. Saying "But OS X..." is no different than saying "The next version of NT...".
--
That guy rocked. I wonder where he went?
--
I HATE JON (*&##@ KATZ. PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, MARK STORIES ABOUT HIM AS BEING BY HIM SO MY @#@#%* FILTER WORKS.
--
IIRC, in Starship Troopers the MI (Mobile Infantry) was able (nay, required) to field strip their own suits. How many of today's soldiers can field strip a palmtop?
--
Gosh, is this the best you can do?
Your response to poor UI metaphors is "use the cryptic command keys" (non-easy, non-intuitive and arguably non-clean) OR aliases and name changes that don't really fix the metaphor: I want the disk OUT of the computer, not IN another icon. Again, easy, intuitive and clean are right out the door
You claim a strike against me for MacOS not being preemptively multitasking--actually, that's exactly my point: no power. Also non-easy for people used to REAL power.
As for "something more recent than System 6". I'm commenting on OS 8.6. "OS9 does away with many of..." blah. Windows2000 does away with many of the problems that plague NT4--and introduces many others.
In fact, I often can't remember if I'm talking to a MacFreak or Microsoftie. Both of them claim jam yesterday and jam tomorrow, but never jam today.
--
Why would this be against the FSF's philosophy? The main philosophy they have is "you should be able to do what you want with your software". If what you want is to use high-grade software ports to teach yourself programming (a particular platform) then more power to you. The only requirement made of you is that IF you share the "physical" fruits of your labor (the software), please also share the knowledge you gained creating it.
--
...somewhat-obvious insights...somewhat-obvious comment...I love talking heads.
If this report is so obvious that you feel the need to mock, why even post it on Slashdot?
--
I love it when someone tries to defend the braindead Mac. It gives me a chance to bring out my favorite examples:
1) Eject a disk. There are two ways. a) The system menu. OK, I guess I can see that. b) Pull the disk to the trash can. "But," says the new user, "won't that DELETE my disk?" No, it's just a bad metaphor. "Well, OK," says he, "but I'd feel safer if I could just eject it with a button--you know like on a PC." Macs don't have an eject button. Cross off "clean", "intuitive", AND "powerful" for these two major boo-boos.
2) Multitasking. People keep telling me that MacOS (pre-emptively) multitasks. Maybe so--I've seen multiple processes running (say, playing a CD and browsing at the same time). OTOH, why do modal dialogs keep other programs from being accessible? Cross off "easy" and put another line throught "powerful".
--
The military is a machine. Soldiers are the "commodity components". Giving soldiers expensive, breakage-prone, training-intensive, high-tech gear is going to have on of two effects:
1) Raise the cost of running the military without substantially raising it's effectiveness. Think of the people you knew in high school who were joining the Army because they didn't know what else to do. Now give that person a palmtop, a GPS and a 24 hours to find their ass. Come pick up any pieces that remain tomorrow.
2) Give the military a false sense of unbeatability: "Gentlemen, we are the best-equipped fighting force in the world." Yeah, until 3 guys with AK-47s in Jeeps come knock down your satellite transceivers. When your GPS-dependent droids don't know which way is north, it's unlikely they'll come running to your aid.
It has been proven over and over again (from the Goths to the American Revolution to Vietnam) that distributed, guerilla-style fighting is less fragile (and thus usually more successful) than centralized, top-down fighting. This money could be better spent teaching soldiers how to navigate via astronomy (with a homemade sextant) and some memory-enhancement and "fast math" skills (to replace the palmtop).
--
Actually, I think this issue has already come up. In Heinlein's book "Stranger in a Strange Land" mention is made of a "hydraulic bed". From the description, this bed contains water and is used to gently float a patient to lessen chance of bed sores and cause less pain to burn victims. This book was published in the late 1950's before waterbeds (which is clearly what the hydraulic bed is) were invented.
I'm going to need someone to help out with the story from this point on, though because it's hazy in my mind. All I can remember is that someone tried to patent "The Valentine Michael Smith Water Nest" or something like that, and Heinlein won some kind of legal challenge against it. What I don't remember was whether this was based on the prior art aspect of the waterbed itself, or some kind of copyright on the name.
--
It's called "LessTif".
My company has a Motif product. When I ported to Linux, I used LessTif. Using LessTif nearly everything compiled out of the box and most things ran correctly. After getting the non-Motif-related bugs out of the way, I only ended up with about 4 bugs that I can blame on LessTif itself. I definitely recommend using LessTif if you need to use Motif on Linux.
--
There is plenty of software that will run on one Linux system but not another. Why do you think there are separate java binaries for glibc and libc5 systems?
I don't know about your system, but my RedHat 6.1 machine has something called "compat-libs" which seem to be libc5 stuff. So my machine will run old AND new stuff. Of course, an old machine won't run new stuff, but that's no more "fragmented" than any other OS. It's just the nature of progress.
--
"...there is something 'mindless,' 'isolating,' 'lonely' and 'arrogant' about reading online."
No, that's what it's like to be a librarian.
Seriously, is this the dumbest things you've ever heard or what? I don't read for companionship--I do it for pleasure and/or information. So what am I supposed to do? Drive to DC every time I need to look something up at the L of C?
--
1) White text on black background is unreadable.
--
Could you put some meet on those claims? For instance, "[y]ou want proprietary software, use the GPL." Please give a definition of "proprietary" and a feature of GPL that matches that definition.
--
Here's the coolest feature (from the "config and order" page):
Choice #3 for "Operating System" is: None - pre-formatted HD only (-$83)
Yep, people are starting to get it. Not only do I want to be able to buy a "blank" computer, but I want to PAY less when I GET less.
--
He's apologized, it's over. Although it would probably be nice if he posted it on his site and sent a retraction (or at least an explanation) to the sites he contacted.
--
To sum up:
1) Be made mistake.
2) You found the mistake and
a) posted it on your news site
b) posted it on another news site known for it's hasty reactions
c) THEN contacted BeOS to get more information
3) Someone questioned whether you ought to contact Be
4) You claimed you "made it clear" that you had contacted Be
5) When someone notes that you didn't "make it clear" you admit you hadn't mentioned that when you posted the story
I think the REAL point here is that you haven't read the Advocacy-HOWTO.
Free Software is about love (i.e. sharing) or, at worst, tough love (I'll play nice with you if you play nice with me). All you've done is instill fear in current and future GPL users. They'll be careful all right--careful to avoid the GPL.
--