I had RK (scapel) done on one eye, and Lasik (laser) done on the other. Here's my account of both.
It's definitely worth it. Imagine never having to remove your contacts while drunk again. Or putting both contacts in the same eye when you wake up drunk.;)
With Lasik, your vision fluctuates for a couple months afterwards, but Lasik can correct more drastically than RK. You see haloes at night because your iris opens up enough for light to pass through the scarred cornea. It's a lot like the effect you'd pay lots of $$$ for in a good graphics card. (But it's real.)
The link above takes you to a web page showing the before and after topology of my eye, for both procedures. It also relates the experience step-by-step -- the Lasik was more nerve-racking than I expected. ------------------------------------------------ ------- "For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words
1) I thought OEMs typically pay a large up-front cost for unlimited license to redistribute MS's software. Shipping PCs that don't run Windows actually costs them because they don't save any money in licensing, and have to retool their factories.
2) Norton Ghost can back up an entire system installation in a hidden partition. Some OEMs use this feature when a user really screws up their system: run this magic utility and your system will be just like it was when you bought it. --------------------------------------------- ---------- "For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words
Okay, to summarize: OS, irrelevant; programs, reason for having a computer; anything that blurs the distinction between one OS and the next (or makes the OS distinction a distant second to program usability), good news indeed.
I wholeheartedly agree. (Well, as long as the window manager isn't part of the OS -- I want that much control, at least.:)
However, you're not going to see it anytime soon. Microsoft is deathly afraid of the OS becoming a commodity, which is why they fight tooth and nail agaist Java and for the web browser market. These technologies make the OS irrelevant.
If you look at PDAs, you'll see that Microsoft has fought hard for the OS, but has largely failed because they entered late enough that they have to actually compete on quality.
------------------------------------------------ ------- "For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words
Intel's newest chips do this sort of translation, from CISC x86 instructions to RISC-like microinstructions, which are then run in the superscalar, pipelined core. What's new here?
The source instructions don't have to be x86, and maybe can be changed on the fly. (Okay, they didn't say that, but I think it's implied.)
This sort of thing is great for emulating stuff like operating systems, where you need to be able to trap instructions that run in protected mode before they do anything wrong. (Think VMWare.)
It sounds like speculative execution, except the whole processor's state can be rolled back. (Actually, the whole system, since memory is included.)
Okay... Now I'll get out of computer architecture, and back to my home in software.;) ---------------------------------------------- --------- "For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words
I've seen it said that open source projects go through a growth stage, where hackers work diligently to provide patches that cause the software to have the features they desire. After a while, contributions slow as the software matures, meeting the general needs of most technically minded people.
Unfortunately, if the software has potential to make it in non-technical circles, it often has to jump several remaining hurdles -- documentation, better user interfaces, etc.
Some have suggested that going "commercial open source" is the only way to get through this period of stagnation. Basically, you have to pay people money to do the unrewarding, tedious work that must be done to make software "ready for public consumption".
First, does this characterization match your experience? Second, do you see any alternative to going commercial?
Thanks! --------------------------------------- ---------------- "For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words
What influence, if any, do you think the Open Source movement will have on companies whose sole value is in the software they sell? (i.e. they don't sell support or services -- just closed-source binaries.) -------------------------------------- ----------------- "For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words
Yesterday one of my own Open Source projects went on sale -- News Clipper.
The way I did it was basically to charge people who don't have the time or knowledge necessary to deal with the Open Source version. I sell a package that includes documentation, priority tech support, and platform-specific installation (a la InstallShield for Windows).
All the while I'm still releasing the Open Source distribution under the GPL. OS folks are happy because things look basically the same as they did before the commercialization, and they'll get new features in advance of the commercial crowd. (I'm going to do beta testing that way.)
One of the fundamental problems that no one talks about with commercial open source endeavors is that you have to sell something proprietary. If it's not proprietary, competitors will undercut you and your business will simply fail. I'm following the RedHat/O'Reilly model: sell proprietary support and documentation.
Luckily, I was able to hook up with Binary Research International. They handle all the business stuff: marketing, sales, distribution. That way I can focus on development and tech support, and not have to also play the businessman. It's a model I recommend (and will probably recommend in a year -- ask me then:).
Yes, there are non-trivial risks: Microsoft could steal the ideas embodied in the code and create a proprietary, competing product. (Luckily the GPL prevents them from making the source proprietary.) RedHat folks could start distributing it with every copy of Linux (thereby hurting Linux sales). ISPs could install the Open Source version for the 300 business website they host (thereby killing any potential sale). Third parties could start selling documentation and support in competition with me.
This is an interesting experiment in "Commercial Open Source In-The-Small". Can a small product like mine follow the same business model as RedHat and O'Reilly? We'll see!
David
------------------------------------------------ ------- "For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words
It seems like every open source project is going commercial or incorporating. Witness Sendmail, Inc., Artifex (Ghostscript), Red Hat (sort of), our beloved Slashdot, and now Apache.
I wonder if this won't later be considered a milestone in the development of Open Source as a threat to proprietary software.
Every publisher I've been talking with lately says they'd be willing to use an OSD-compliant license on their book as long as the license applies on the day that printed copies get to stores and not before. That sounds fair to me. It gives the publisher lead-time over the other publishers who did not pay for the work, and we get free documentation.
Really? In The Open-Source Revolution Tim O'Reilly says that they tried it and it didn't work. Do you happen to know what the difference was? Was it the delayed release of the "source code"?
Slashdot Mirror
It's definitely worth it. Imagine never having to remove your contacts while drunk again. Or putting both contacts in the same eye when you wake up drunk. ;)
With Lasik, your vision fluctuates for a couple months afterwards, but Lasik can correct more drastically than RK. You see haloes at night because your iris opens up enough for light to pass through the scarred cornea. It's a lot like the effect you'd pay lots of $$$ for in a good graphics card. (But it's real.)
The link above takes you to a web page showing the before and after topology of my eye, for both procedures. It also relates the experience step-by-step -- the Lasik was more nerve-racking than I expected.- -------
-----------------------------------------------
"For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words
Two thoughts:
- ----------
1) I thought OEMs typically pay a large up-front cost for unlimited license to redistribute MS's software. Shipping PCs that don't run Windows actually costs them because they don't save any money in licensing, and have to retool their factories.
2) Norton Ghost can back up an entire system installation in a hidden partition. Some OEMs use this feature when a user really screws up their system: run this magic utility and your system will be just like it was when you bought it.
--------------------------------------------
"For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words
I wholeheartedly agree. (Well, as long as the window manager isn't part of the OS -- I want that much control, at least. :)
However, you're not going to see it anytime soon. Microsoft is deathly afraid of the OS becoming a commodity, which is why they fight tooth and nail agaist Java and for the web browser market. These technologies make the OS irrelevant.
If you look at PDAs, you'll see that Microsoft has fought hard for the OS, but has largely failed because they entered late enough that they have to actually compete on quality.
-----------------------------------------------
"For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words
Okay... Now I'll get out of computer architecture, and back to my home in software. ;)- ---------
---------------------------------------------
"For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words
I've seen it said that open source projects go through a growth stage, where hackers work diligently to provide patches that cause the software to have the features they desire. After a while, contributions slow as the software matures, meeting the general needs of most technically minded people.
- ----------------
Unfortunately, if the software has potential to make it in non-technical circles, it often has to jump several remaining hurdles -- documentation, better user interfaces, etc.
Some have suggested that going "commercial open source" is the only way to get through this period of stagnation. Basically, you have to pay people money to do the unrewarding, tedious work that must be done to make software "ready for public consumption".
First, does this characterization match your experience? Second, do you see any alternative to going commercial?
Thanks!
--------------------------------------
"For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words
What influence, if any, do you think the Open Source movement will have on companies whose sole value is in the software they sell? (i.e. they don't sell support or services -- just closed-source binaries.)- -----------------
-------------------------------------
"For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words
I've started a collection. (Hey, even Alan Cox allowed me to use his Heathrow Airport picture!)
- -------
Check it out
-----------------------------------------------
"For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words
I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in...
:).
- -------
Yesterday one of my own Open Source projects went on sale -- News Clipper.
The way I did it was basically to charge people who don't have the time or knowledge necessary to deal with the Open Source version. I sell a package that includes documentation, priority tech support, and platform-specific installation (a la InstallShield for Windows).
All the while I'm still releasing the Open Source distribution under the GPL. OS folks are happy because things look basically the same as they did before the commercialization, and they'll get new features in advance of the commercial crowd. (I'm going to do beta testing that way.)
One of the fundamental problems that no one talks about with commercial open source endeavors is that you have to sell something proprietary. If it's not proprietary, competitors will undercut you and your business will simply fail. I'm following the RedHat/O'Reilly model: sell proprietary support and documentation.
Luckily, I was able to hook up with Binary Research International. They handle all the business stuff: marketing, sales, distribution. That way I can focus on development and tech support, and not have to also play the businessman. It's a model I recommend (and will probably recommend in a year -- ask me then
Yes, there are non-trivial risks: Microsoft could steal the ideas embodied in the code and create a proprietary, competing product. (Luckily the GPL prevents them from making the source proprietary.) RedHat folks could start distributing it with every copy of Linux (thereby hurting Linux sales). ISPs could install the Open Source version for the 300 business website they host (thereby killing any potential sale). Third parties could start selling documentation and support in competition with me.
This is an interesting experiment in "Commercial Open Source In-The-Small". Can a small product like mine follow the same business model as RedHat and O'Reilly? We'll see!
David
-----------------------------------------------
"For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words
It seems like every open source project is going commercial or incorporating. Witness Sendmail, Inc., Artifex (Ghostscript), Red Hat (sort of), our beloved Slashdot, and now Apache.
I wonder if this won't later be considered a milestone in the development of Open Source as a threat to proprietary software.
David
Every publisher I've been talking with lately says they'd be willing to use an OSD-compliant license on their book as long as the license applies on the day that printed copies get to stores and not before. That sounds fair to me. It gives the publisher lead-time over the other publishers who did not pay for the work, and we get free documentation.
Really? In The Open-Source Revolution Tim O'Reilly says that they tried it and it didn't work. Do you happen to know what the difference was? Was it the delayed release of the "source code"?