But not right now - they're still simple systems, even the best of games
I still think that position that video games do not require skill is an absurd postion to take.
A skill is a 'developed talent or ability', you increase your skill at something through practice and training.
Your are choosing to determine that video games require no skill because they don't require a certain _level_ of skill, because they can be learned relatively quickly, which makes no sense unless your also willing to accept that other things which take a simiar time to learn (say, the recorder, tin whistle, karting, basic woodwork or metalwork) also do not require skill - which is just as absurd.
I can't see how an rational person could honestly think that being good a video games is not a 'developed talent or ability'. Frankly, I think you've decided upon an utterly absurd idea and are just trying to justify it. Changing 'your definition of skill' is just a means of shifting the argument to that end.
I do agree we shouldn't idolize them (unless, you know, they are _really_ good;).
Karting, Paintball, Snowboarding and learning Magic Tricks aren't in themselves that useful either, but they still have skill involved.
Doing them to an acceptable 'competative' level is not the hardest things in the world (not as hard as say, learning a musical instrument) but it's quite similar to getting a good level of skill in a multiplayer game (like Unreal Tournament or Counter Strike), in that it can take a similar amount of time.
I think games are going to keep being more interesting, you can already hide in the swamp/rubble/long grass/on the cliff, choose weapon types that have different weights, reload times, clip sizes, impacts and armour types with different stenghts and styles - the weight of which effects your overall movement speed and aiming time [i.e. the time it takes for your recticle to stettle]). It can take quite a while to find your personal favorite weapons and develop tactics for a game (both generic tactics and map specific ones).
Both Ghost Recon and True Combat (the Q3A mod) are good examples of this (the are much less 'run around in your face quick fire that rocket' than Q3A, UT or even CS, and they rely really heavily on team work).
Skill at video games is mostly reaction speed, and knowledge of how to exploit the game's constraints. Is that skill? Well yes, but barely.
*Exactly* the same could be said of martial arts combat (fast reaction times, exploitation of opponents weakneses), and it would be just as wrong.
It doesn't sound like you've played many modern games (if you have done, then you've not been getting much out of them if your not playing them tatically and just trying to 'aim & shoot really fast' the only people your ever going to beat are newbies). You have to use your brain in order to become a master of these games, and you have to practice, _a lot_.
Just ask anyone who's won a gaming competition, ask them how much they need to practice, read about them, then, if it's so easy, go beat them at their chosen game, have a few weeks practice, if you think that's all you need.
It takes as much practice to learn how to snap kick as it does to rocket jump (actually, it took me a little bit longer to master effective rocket jumping in Marathon).
It's amazingly arbitrary to consider something 'not a skill' just because it involves a computer. Forgive me for being presumptious, but you sound a lot like someone who's passed over the era of modern gaming and doesn't do it themselves, but think they know what it's about from the few games they've played (you sound a lot like my now 30 year old flatmate, who comes from a generation that just missed out on gaming as a youthful pasttime by just a few years[1]). He's played a few games, but doesn't know a single UT, CS, or Q3A map, because he's never really been into games in the way that those slightly younger than him are (I think the last game he played was The Dig).
[1] I, like most gamers I know, am in my mid twenties and a child of the Sonic generation.
You want some real skill learn to play an instrument [piano is fairly hard] or invent a longer lasting light bulb. Those are *real* talents.
It seems like it's been a long time since you've played any modern multiplayer title.
You think is is random chance? Is it random that a serious Quake/Counter Strike/Street Fighter player could beat you 100 times in straight matches?
If you still contend there is no skill, give it a try and see how well you do.
I'm sorry but most 12 yr old kids can play the same games and I certainly don't idolize them.
Most 12 years olds can plonk the keys on a piano and make sound come out of it too - nobody is suggesting they are _good_ at it though, or worth idolising. Most games are ment to be very accessible, like most sports.
As for for you comment about 'real' talents: What about football players? Or tennis players, or table tennis players, or golfers - do you think they are not 'real' talents? Why should the ability to be good at table tennis, or softball, or batting, pitching, fielding, or kicking a ball, be held in any higher regard than the ability to be really good at game like Quake, Counter Strike or a more complex and strategic title like Ghost Recon?
If your assumuption was correct then you should be able to beat Quake III on the hardest level with little difficulty, after all others can do it - and so if it takes no skill why would you find it difficult when they do not?
You are so amazingly anachronistic it's stunning. Games are not like Zork any more, titles like Ghost Recon have easily require easily as much skill as a paintball, and MotoGP as much skill as entry level karting, but online games are physically and practically more accessable (and cheaper).
So the French, Germans (as seen in WWI/WWII) and British (obviously) are not scared of the Swiss.
It's not that they are incompotent, they are well trained (and respected around the world) but they are hardly a match for a serious military force as it's such a very small country (the population of the whole country is less than that of Greater London).
The size of the country, and it's vunerable land locked poition, surrounded on three sides by main land Europe's three most notorious keen-on-invading trouble makers: the French (Napoleon), the Germans (WWI & WWII) and the Italians (WWII & the Holy Roman Empire), coupled with the evidence that clearly shows their defense force doesn't work (because it certainly didn't stop the French, Germans or the Italians from rolling into town) should be ample evidence that there isn't any military virtue in having a non-professional army.
The purpose of the state is to do what is best for the citizenry as a whole. Thus, policies may be applied to you that you find distasteful, but are good for the country.
But that's just it - it's _not_ good for the country. It not only personally intrusive but counter productive to conscript citizens during peacetime. That's why virtualy no countries do it any more, it's expensive, and silly (and morally wrong).
As for Germany, well if it's government wasn't so utterly incompetant, it wouldn't need conscripts to do the jobs of civil servants (other countries don't do this, and there is NO good reason for Germany to do so).
If you do your part as a citizen, your country will prosper.
That's sadly not the case. Citizens frequently need to keep the political establishment in check.
Turn you back for 5 minutes and you'll find them selling weapons to Iran, funding terrorists or invading Poland.
If you are always looking for what serves you best and be damned to the rest of the country, your country will degenerate, which makes it worse for you anyway So you see, your greediness works against you
Greedyness is a natural human trait, the best idea is to channel it into something positive (ala Capitalisim). That's a role for the state as I see it , that's why leaders are paid with money from my pocket. The state should be reminded at all times that it is expendable, it's citizens are not (when the state thinks it's more important that it's citizens, popular revolt is the consequence, and that tends to lead to people being shot, or having body parts lopped off).
We'll see how it goes. I'm paciently awaiting HL2...
Really? - I think your the only one!
Hell, I wan't it now dammnit!
As for Counter Strike, I think it's a shame the textures and model polycounts are still so low.
A Pentium 200 with a 3dfx Voodoo card is more than adaqute for Counter Strike, but there are hordes of gamers with decent equipment (2+ Ghz systems, with ATI 9500/NVIDA 5600's and upwards) who'd like to be able to get some decent use out of there expensive hardware.
I've got an AMD 2600+ and a Radeon 9700 Pro, it's not even top of the range (might have been 6 months ago) and I'm still struggling to find games which make decent use out of it (e.g. Vice City, which is still great, I can turn on full texture resolution & smoothing, max draw distance, even with 6x FSAA and plenty of light effects there is plenty of room to spare for more polygons). Battlefield 1942 looks nice though. Suggestions for decent and taxing games (that also play well;) just give a run though are welcome. Serious Sam is pretty but too crazy-go-nuts-yet-overly-repetative for me.
I think it's disappointing for many mid-to-high (which I consider my system is) and true high end gamers (e.g. AMD 3200/P4 3 Ghz+Hyperthreading & ATI 9700/9800/NVDIA 5800/5900) not to see games with higher polygon models for items and decent texture sets.
I can't see why, if your going to shoot the same damn storm trooper 100 times;), there can't be a high res version of his player model too (I know it takes time - and thus money - but companies like Lucasarts, have full time model makers and it seems reasonable).
35.6% of the voting people accepting the initiative "For a Switzerland without army" on November 26th, 1989, and 21.9% accepting a similar one on December 2nd, 2001, does that sound "little" to you?
That's very interesting.
I wonder if it will change dramatically (i.e. if dissent will increase) now that European neigbours are disbanding/abolishing conscription (I'm thinking of young men looking over their shoulders and seeing them men in other countries don't have to and asking 'Why do we have to do this again?').
I hear the Germans are having some serious logistical problems with it because they offer conscripted social service as an alternative to military serivice and they simply don't have enough civil servants to cover the loss of man power (and seeing the current much less than stellar state of the German economy, I can't see tax revenues being able to cover the recuritment shortfall any time soon).
I certainly wouldn't contend there are plenty of oiks in Mensa now (but god, Gary Bushell) just that was the (well intentioned) backdrop against it was founded against.
To be honest I think Gary Bushell is a not a complete moron though, and the sames goes for Richard Littlejohn - the are just moral vaccums in it for the raitings and shillings.
They must be.
I refuse to think otherwise, the alternative is just _too_ horrible and melts my brain.
Yes I've read a little about the training and it's purpose, (and that effectively every household in Switzerland has a gun, and that the men are trained in it's use) though I admit to not really knowing much about it.
I think a short period of training is not objectionable and does serve the purpose it's intended to (by providing a cheap, yet effective defense force, where each citizen is empowered to defend themselves against invaders, or in theory against a rogue Swiss government), how long does this training (and the referesher course) last though? (I'm genuinely curious:)
I think that is relevent as the exercise has has surely got to be questionable given the size of of the country and it's defensive capabilties (as the UK, French, Italian, German, Japanese, Austrialian armies (for example) have all individually certainly enough reasources to invade regardless of the presence of a large militia, given their superior equpiment and training [for example, armed militia infantry are no match for arial bombardment, anti personel vehicles, tanks, gunships and chemical agents (including legal chemical agents)]).
While the German forces largely ignored Switzerland due to it's nutrality, had they won the first or second world war I don't think any would be able to doubt that the Swiss would have been in no position to bargin for continued independance or autonomy (for the Axis would have simply have taken out and shot any who resisted, and threatend to execute familes of any resistance, to deter opposition). I mention this purely as an example of why I don't belive the system really has much merit in providing a useful defence force.
I also have very strong issues with only men being forced to do this training, as this is something that makes little sense (as the saying goes "Colt makes all men equal", my implication here being that women are just as capable in being trained in firearms as men).
To me, this is the singularly most odd aspect of behaviour that Swiss culture exhibits (I think the reason I find it particularly odd is the Swiss are known for their even handedness and empowerment of their citizens). I keep hearing that the Swiss don't mind too, that just makes it seem even more bizzare to me! I also find it utterly distasteful that the Swiss state does not offically recognise conscientious objection - which is an extreme act of oppression in my book (and is in direct contravention of the UN Commission for Human Rights, which states that it's a legitimate position for any individual to take), it's also quite ironic given the Swiss attitute to nutrality.
Personally, I would refuse to do it for the reasons outlined above (and be willing to go to jail indenfinately to resist, if I was unable to leave the country). I'd also seek citizenship of another country and return my right to Swiss citizenship in protest.
UK citizens would balk at such an idea and riot in the street (I can just imagine - with some amusement - the millions that turned out to protest against the war in Iraq turning up in the streets of London again, but this time rioting en mass, ala the poll tax riots, ah in the crowded, twisty, difficult-to-defend streets of London that would be a sight!).
It's also an interesting an conflict with US world view because this is the very reason many American's (including the NRA) continue to demand the right to own guns (to prevent the citizens from being bullied by the government).
I don't think continental Europe generally has nearly as much concept as the rights of citizens over the rights of the state as the UK, or more vividly, newer states such as the US, Australia & New Zeland (the US being the keenest). NB: I'm not refering to 'rights of citizens' when I say this, but rather just 'rights of citizens in preference to rights of the state'.
Please don't think I'm attacking Switzerland, I'm just amazed at the seeming difference in cultural attidute of what I belive is an otherwise superb country (that has many policies I think we would do very well to adopt ourselves).
As a UK citizen (also a social democracy, at least by US perceptions) I really quite like Switzerland's model (far more democratic than the UK, which is still tied up with hundreds of years worth of elderly legislation and precident).
On the down side, don't they still have conscription in Switzerland?
I am very anti conscription (except in times of war where it comes essential for the survival of citizens of the state (and/or their civil rights), as in the two previous world wars).
Not least because it's horribly inefficient and the resultant conscripts are worse than useless in performing actual modern military duties (which is not just my opinion, but one backed by the military intelligence community, and a topic previously covered by Janes) but also because I don't think the state should arbitrarily order people around (as I believe the state should serve the people, not the other way round).
Unlike JFK I think people should always question "what the state can do for them" rather than ask "What can I do for the state?" (the state should always have justify it's existence and every tax is levies and spends on bureaucracy and every individual it employs or gives money to for any service or goods, or whenever it asks it's citizens to give up their time or put themselves at risk.
Assuming it's still active are there any plans to abolish conscription in Switzerland (as it has been - or is being - in the rest of Europe)?
I would hope someone who claims to be a member of Mensa[1] would also have read the FAQ and realised that administrators (Roblimo, Taco, et al) do not remove posts form this forum ( see this FAQ article).
The comments are entirely unwarrented, but not uncommon, social misfits abound on/. and are 'part of the furniture'./. would be better served to print the IP address of all posters than to moderate by removing offending posts, but even that would mean we lose the occational invaluable anonymous post (made by users who fear prosecution, retibution or harresment for posting sensitive information).
-- Comments on Mensa --
[1] (This is entirely off topic, and not intended as a Troll.) I believe Mensa is an entirely undesirable institution created in the 1940's by English upper middle members of society FOR upper middle class members of society, to provide a comfort layer of separation between the great British middle classes and the oiks that make up the vast majority of the population. Though an on-going thread through-out the history of many cultures, is was something that was a particular worry for the British middle classes in years following the end of World War II (where well intentioned thoughts were turning to new world order, and on ways to achieve it, as evident not least from literature and media produced at the time).
I believe that distinction and separation of individuals by characteristics that are predominantly outside of there control (and so for all intents and purposes may be considered 'genetic', though that literally might not be the case) is utterly undesirable and is damaging to society as a whole. In the longer term, is equally as damaging as the separation of individuals based on any other physical characteristic (such as skin colour), but unlike distinction of individuals based of visible genetic differences it's far more subtle.
It's also evident to me that existing measurements of intelligence (including the systems used by Mensa) are dubious to say the least - measurement of an individuals ability to solve problems is useful (as are measurements of there numbers and literacy, which are often part of such tests), but they not a useful factor in determining the actual intelligence of an individual, as this relies to a myriad of other intangible factors (factors that are technically quantifiable - to a degree - when taken individually, but the difficulty lies in determining which factors to test and the importance of each in relation to the other parts, which requires a complex matrix model which we are far from being able to simulate).
As an excellent example, you don't yet understand how moderation on forum works, nor did you have enough nous to read the FAQ when signing up (where it is explained quite clearly in entirely unambiguous terms). I only point this out as it's an excellent example of how the measurement of IQ is flawed beyond usefulness for it's stated purpose. I don't say this to attack you personally (for we all make mistakes and goading or gloating over others mistakes is seldom of benefit), but just to prove a point: if someone is unable to read a manual (as it were), then any measurement which shows they are superior in Intelligence to others (who _have_ read the FAQ and/or who were able to 'grok' the moderation system intuitively) should surely be called into question.
When I think of a group like Mensa, it conjures up images of utopian, socialist (and far from democratic) state led by 'the best and brightest of society' - this was of course the backdrop of a vision of future against which the group was founded. The phrases "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" and "The best laid plans of mice and men gang aft agley" spring immediately to my mind.
I feel a deep sense of mistrust in anyone who exhibits a desire to join any faction which separates themselves from the rest of the population though a means of elitism that stems from a belief that they are in any way superior to other members of the human race.
It represents an indulgence in a darker aspect of human behaviour that should be guarded against.
Do they work without semi-transparency? Microsoft Internet Explorer has correctly handled binary transparency in indexed PNG images since at least version 4.
My project only uses basic (binary) transparency. Having not tried it under IE recently (just tested it just now) it does actually now work fine without the Direct X hack, which was the only way I could get it to work before.
I was having some issues with libpng before (on a Solaris system), I assume it was screwing up the transparencies in some way.
Now, it looks fine (so yay!).
(Actually, the above isn't strictly true as I do use multiple layers of transparency, but that's just for addtional easy of use so that users can see what's behind an item when they are dragging it, which is useful in complex views).
Working accessibility and internationalization into your design at early stages is easier than working them in at later stages.
Been there before, I've had to deal with encoding for not just European languages, but Russian and Japanese before, and I'm constantly switching between platforms (Linux, BSD, Solaris, Mac OS X, Windows). I've also developed for multiple device profiles at once, which is one of the reasons behind the idea of having libraries to render HTML.
all you need to do is get somebody else to implement an alternate interface
I'm still working on that, I have to add a handful of additional features before it will start to interest people, then I will be able to go back over things I've deliberately skipped over and lay some more ground work for future development.
One think I think a few other people are missing out is that I'm making a deliberate approach, from experience, on finding a balance between ground work and getting a usable product out.
I've done what I consider to be the important ground work (DB interface, IO, file locking, etc), and have skipped over a few things like not using SQL as the language for data extraction (or even having a formal API for data extraction).
If I did all the ground work first, I'd have nothing to show for months, as I know from experience, and I've never wanted that. I'd rather build a useful application (i.e. solid IO, good error handling, humane interface) and go back and re-write parts later (e.g. re-write procedural functions as OO functions). Once you get over a hurdle (where you have a usable but basic product) it's easy to go back, tidy a few loose ends and work in a completely structured fashion from then on, because there is much more momentum behind the product.
Also think it's a bit futile to set things in stone at the begining and write API's before you need them because they invariably need changing anyway (though obviously this is not a sensible idea for a really _large_ multiuser project where there is no central dictator).
You comment completely bypasses the idea of time (as viewed by us mere mortals) as a linear construct.
If I'm doing (a) how can I possibly do (b) at the same time? My time is obviously a finite resource.
I'm either going to be adding new features OR adding an additional interface support for the blind. Even with the API hooks for rendering widgets (which are mostly present, explicity for text and low bandwidth users) I would still need to do the work at some point.
It's not as if they fairies are going to do it (as my mother was fond of saying when I was child).
1) That's obviously utter bullshit, because not every item of US government software is usable by the blind.
2) I'm not an American, nor do I live in the US, so why, exactly, would I give a rats ass?
3) Even if I was a US citizen, I'd stay in the private sector, not the public sector because it pays *much* better.
4) Just beacause I make free GNU software that isn't specialy geared towards blind people doesn't bar me from getting a contract with any government in the world.
Apologies in advanced for a simplistic and obvious question but...
What's the best way to get funding for a project, assuming the project is at some sort of usable prototype stage already (i.e. who should you approach, what ground work should be done)? How should one court potential sponsors? Is it better to wait for them to come to you, or should you present a formal funding request in a format similar to that of a traditional business plan?
Being blind doesn't make someone a misfit or oddball.
How many blind users to you actually think out there looking for a project management tool?
The reality is not many, and certainly not enough to make worth my while diverting resources away from other (real, as opposed to hypothetical) users.
The program already outputs (and reads in) valid XML for all the data storage (project data, user accounts, permission levels, category & priority definitions) so if any one wants to add support they can, but I've already done my part.
The result of IE's lack of alpha channel support is that your app doesn't look as good, not that "it doesn't work"
Actually without transparency, it doesn't work well at all because interface elements (e.g. the tabs, GANTT view) become confusing without transparency. Unlike you I don't think malformed elements are acceptable or workable.
If a user has to spend time trying to workout how to use a tool for project management because the interface is poorly designed, or broken, that means the tool isn't working (the tool is supposed to save time by allowing you to organise how time is spent, it's not meant to be a device to use up your time).
Ultimately, the decision comes down to:
1) Delay a lot of features I was planning to add, by having (and maintaining) a second text mode only interface.
2) Delay a few features I was planning to add by re-writing the interface and making it less friendly for the existing users but simple enough that it will be useable by text mode only users.
3) Add features that I was planning to thus pleasing >99% of users (but not to anything more for blind people, people who can't read English or people who can't use mice, or other users with similarly non main stream requirements).
I think providing open sourced GLP'd software, with documented API's and XML data formats is doing enough. I choose option 3 and leave the additional features to be written by those that want to add them. I will address the issues of disabled users, mobile users and non English speakers after, and only after - I have satisfied the needs of the majority of users. It's cold, hard and practicle.
In closing I note that you wouldn't complain if I used QT or GTK for widget generation: The only reason I'm using an HTML based interface in the first place is so that it's as accessible as possible (so that users don't need to install additional client software, they simply need a relatively main stream graphical web browser, like IE, Netscape, Mozilla, Galeon, Safari or Konqueror).
No that's not true, I shouldn't make it accessible to every user. User bases, like society at large, are full of mistfits and oddballs who have to be ignored in order to deliver a useful tool to the majority in a timely and efficent manner.
I know people who don't use a graphical interface, for example. I'm not going to spend time pleasing them when I could be adding new features that would improve the lot of >95% of other users.
My project is a project management tool which relies heavily on graphical representations of data. It's not possible to repesent all of the information in nearly as meaningful a way using no images. Expandable and collapseable thread views, Gantt charts, bar graphs and pie charts are never going to work in any useable sense in Lynx. I can make it 'bearable', but never actually very 'useful'.
I do not intend to add a text only version at the expense of adding new features, a text only version is very low down my list (however, it's designed to be easy for someone else to add simple HTML, WAP and text only interfaces if they wish).
Lastly I don't think that having an FAQ to explain why it doesn't work for 90+ % of users is an acceptable solution.
Curiously, does IE support more than one alpha channel with PNG?
I looked at this a few months ago and I think the answer was: Yes, *but* you need to use additional VB to 'use' multiple layers of transparency.
But I could be wrong...
It's certainly not straight forward.
Just removed all the GIF's from my project, rats!
on
What Is The Future of PNG?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
At the weekend I removed all the GIF's from my project and replaced them with PNG's, because I'd had a submission (understadably) rejected to savannah.gnu.org because of this issue.
I'd only been using GIF's because my project outputs web pages and uses transparent images to render a nice customisable user interface (e.g. tabs) in a way that can only be achived with transparent images - and realistically most people use IE and it has problems with PNG transparency that would require me to use lots of VB scripting in IE just to get IE to behave in the manner I wanted.
Does this mean free GNU projects will be able to use GIF's, or are there still other parent related issues with GIF images?
Lol, you think Kernel modules are only there to offer additional _hardware_ support? Wow you are clueless!
I wonder what in the hell kind of hardware you think lids, secmod and kmonte and supposed to support...
(Oh and hint: You can't get equal functionality natively with FreeBSD, as they are kernel modules, not binaries.).
As for '3 months minimum of dedicated work' to setup service monitoring and administration tools...
*boggle*
Just how slow a coder are you?
Hint (if your too slow at Perl to be able to write the tools yourself within 3 months):
Go to Freshmeat, download, compile and install tools you need (if your experienced, you'll know the tools you need and how to use them as you'll have used them before) and create a unifying interface (e.g. Web based).
It's really not difficult and if it's taking you 3 months, you are amazingly slow (and should maybe improve your skill base more before commenting on this topic, or consider a less taxing vocation).
Actually, I'm including all the factors you've aluded to. I'm not being naive. I'm quoting from experience, I maintain clustered environments for a living (and I personally own x86, Sun Solaris and Apple Power PC systems to boot).
Your massively over over estimating the additional ease of use gained from using an xserve via any other Unix platform (or even Windows NT). It's easier, but there isn't much in it unless you've very little Unix experience.
I agree that xserve's are easier to administrate, I like their administration tools, BUT if you are going to have a large amount of equipment you are going to need a competant engineer in any case.
Apple don't make NAS's, SAN's, NMS's, switches or routers, and only an experienced engineer can tell you how to *use* the equipment in a sensible manner (anyone can get it to 'work', but not 'well' - i.e. not efficently, cost effectively, reliably, securely, quickly or in a resiliant manner).
So, having established the need for a full time engineer, we come to how should does engineer (or that team of engineers) spend their time?
A single experienced engineer can re-create all the functionality of Apple's xserver monitoring/administration tools using exisiting free software within a in a week. Cricket, SNMP, Perl/GTK/Python/Ruby/Shell/TCL/TK scripts can all be used to give you a mangement platform even easier to use (and maintain) than Apple's tools.
And even if you didn't want to do that, Red Hat have parallel GUI tools on their Server and Advanced Server editions.
You can also do more with Linux that you can with Mac OS X (or even other BSD's, or commercial operating systems such as a stock build of Solaris).
The wealth of Linux kernel modules and Linux-only software make this possible. All systems have there advantages. but you can do far more with eve n FreeBSD and OpenBSD than you can with Mac OS X.
So, all of this did enter my world view, it's just that I'm clearly quite a few steps ahead.
Why would I want to spend 500 USD extra per server if it only costs 1 week of an engineers time to build in the extra functionality I want? Once they have written the tool, that's it, you have an image you can install on all the boxes.
*That's* why it only make sense for those (like design firms, schools, and small collages) who arn't going to shell out for a full time administrator, for anyone who isn't a full time admistrator it's not going to make there lives noticeably easier, and it may even get in the way (because they can't use that additional modules or software they want to run because it's not been ported to Mac OS X / PPC).
I agree, I've developed quite a lot in Perl, and multi-tiered functions and modules (with clear, obvious and documented pruposes) are the way to go.
I'd never want to embed SQL/LDAP/etc calls in a page and I always cringe when I see that. I'd rather have a function:
get_user_realname($username);
which might call:
db_connect(); db_get_data(key=>'username',value =>$username,retur n=>"realname"); db_close(); return($realname); (and then I'd right db_connect, db_get_data, db_close as my own functions so I can easily change the modules I use to connect to the DB at a later date).
This way it's much easier to do elegant error handling and to optimise code (as you can easily identify bottle necks).
Non structured code is a maintenance nightware and something done by bad web developers who are either incompotent or would rather they look good for the boss than spend time doing something properly (and ultimately doing the Right Thing for their employer in the long run).
It think this is one of the problems of PHP - it's easy to use, but does not enforce any structure, so those with no design knowledge (or aptitude) can get stuck in and turn out nightmare FPOS software by the bucket load. You can do this with Perl too, but ultimately I think some of the additional complexities of Perl beat this out of most users after a while and they end up being better developers in the long run (because like it or not they end up learning things).
Ultimately however, some people are dumb-as-stump and won't ever be able to churn out sensible C/C++, Java, Perl, PHP or even VB.:(
Slashdot Mirror
But not right now - they're still simple systems, even the best of games
I still think that position that video games do not require skill is an absurd postion to take.
A skill is a 'developed talent or ability', you increase your skill at something through practice and training.
Your are choosing to determine that video games require no skill because they don't require a certain _level_ of skill, because they can be learned relatively quickly, which makes no sense unless your also willing to accept that other things which take a simiar time to learn (say, the recorder, tin whistle, karting, basic woodwork or metalwork) also do not require skill - which is just as absurd.
I can't see how an rational person could honestly think that being good a video games is not a 'developed talent or ability'. Frankly, I think you've decided upon an utterly absurd idea and are just trying to justify it. Changing 'your definition of skill' is just a means of shifting the argument to that end.
I do agree we shouldn't idolize them (unless, you know, they are _really_ good ;).
Karting, Paintball, Snowboarding and learning Magic Tricks aren't in themselves that useful either, but they still have skill involved.
Doing them to an acceptable 'competative' level is not the hardest things in the world (not as hard as say, learning a musical instrument) but it's quite similar to getting a good level of skill in a multiplayer game (like Unreal Tournament or Counter Strike), in that it can take a similar amount of time.
I think games are going to keep being more interesting, you can already hide in the swamp/rubble/long grass/on the cliff, choose weapon types that have different weights, reload times, clip sizes, impacts and armour types with different stenghts and styles - the weight of which effects your overall movement speed and aiming time [i.e. the time it takes for your recticle to stettle]). It can take quite a while to find your personal favorite weapons and develop tactics for a game (both generic tactics and map specific ones).
Both Ghost Recon and True Combat (the Q3A mod) are good examples of this (the are much less 'run around in your face quick fire that rocket' than Q3A, UT or even CS, and they rely really heavily on team work).
Skill at video games is mostly reaction speed, and knowledge of how to exploit the game's constraints. Is that skill? Well yes, but barely.
*Exactly* the same could be said of martial arts combat (fast reaction times, exploitation of opponents weakneses), and it would be just as wrong.
It doesn't sound like you've played many modern games (if you have done, then you've not been getting much out of them if your not playing them tatically and just trying to 'aim & shoot really fast' the only people your ever going to beat are newbies). You have to use your brain in order to become a master of these games, and you have to practice, _a lot_.
Just ask anyone who's won a gaming competition, ask them how much they need to practice, read about them, then, if it's so easy, go beat them at their chosen game, have a few weeks practice, if you think that's all you need.
It takes as much practice to learn how to snap kick as it does to rocket jump (actually, it took me a little bit longer to master effective rocket jumping in Marathon).
It's amazingly arbitrary to consider something 'not a skill' just because it involves a computer. Forgive me for being presumptious, but you sound a lot like someone who's passed over the era of modern gaming and doesn't do it themselves, but think they know what it's about from the few games they've played (you sound a lot like my now 30 year old flatmate, who comes from a generation that just missed out on gaming as a youthful pasttime by just a few years[1]). He's played a few games, but doesn't know a single UT, CS, or Q3A map, because he's never really been into games in the way that those slightly younger than him are (I think the last game he played was The Dig).
[1] I, like most gamers I know, am in my mid twenties and a child of the Sonic generation.
You want some real skill learn to play an instrument [piano is fairly hard] or invent a longer lasting light bulb. Those are *real* talents.
It seems like it's been a long time since you've played any modern multiplayer title.
You think is is random chance? Is it random that a serious Quake/Counter Strike/Street Fighter player could beat you 100 times in straight matches?
If you still contend there is no skill, give it a try and see how well you do.
I'm sorry but most 12 yr old kids can play the same games and I certainly don't idolize them.
Most 12 years olds can plonk the keys on a piano and make sound come out of it too - nobody is suggesting they are _good_ at it though, or worth idolising. Most games are ment to be very accessible, like most sports.
As for for you comment about 'real' talents: What about football players? Or tennis players, or table tennis players, or golfers - do you think they are not 'real' talents? Why should the ability to be good at table tennis, or softball, or batting, pitching, fielding, or kicking a ball, be held in any higher regard than the ability to be really good at game like Quake, Counter Strike or a more complex and strategic title like Ghost Recon?
If your assumuption was correct then you should be able to beat Quake III on the hardest level with little difficulty, after all others can do it - and so if it takes no skill why would you find it difficult when they do not?
You are so amazingly anachronistic it's stunning. Games are not like Zork any more, titles like Ghost Recon have easily require easily as much skill as a paintball, and MotoGP as much skill as entry level karting, but online games are physically and practically more accessable (and cheaper).
Could be why they bought Virtual PC from Connectix (the obvious alternative being they bought them to shut them down...).
The swiss for whatever reason were considered the most deadly mercenaries/army in europe until 1847.
I don't see how you can justify that statement, they were invaded by the French (of all people) in 1798.
And we all know how bad the French are at that sort of thing.
So the French, Germans (as seen in WWI/WWII) and British (obviously) are not scared of the Swiss.
It's not that they are incompotent, they are well trained (and respected around the world) but they are hardly a match for a serious military force as it's such a very small country (the population of the whole country is less than that of Greater London).
The size of the country, and it's vunerable land locked poition, surrounded on three sides by main land Europe's three most notorious keen-on-invading trouble makers: the French (Napoleon), the Germans (WWI & WWII) and the Italians (WWII & the Holy Roman Empire), coupled with the evidence that clearly shows their defense force doesn't work (because it certainly didn't stop the French, Germans or the Italians from rolling into town) should be ample evidence that there isn't any military virtue in having a non-professional army.
The purpose of the state is to do what is best for the citizenry as a whole. Thus, policies may be applied to you that you find distasteful, but are good for the country.
But that's just it - it's _not_ good for the country. It not only personally intrusive but counter productive to conscript citizens during peacetime. That's why virtualy no countries do it any more, it's expensive, and silly (and morally wrong).
As for Germany, well if it's government wasn't so utterly incompetant, it wouldn't need conscripts to do the jobs of civil servants (other countries don't do this, and there is NO good reason for Germany to do so).
If you do your part as a citizen, your country will prosper.
That's sadly not the case. Citizens frequently need to keep the political establishment in check.
Turn you back for 5 minutes and you'll find them selling weapons to Iran, funding terrorists or invading Poland.
If you are always looking for what serves you best and be damned to the rest of the country, your country will degenerate, which makes it worse for you anyway So you see, your greediness works against you
Greedyness is a natural human trait, the best idea is to channel it into something positive (ala Capitalisim). That's a role for the state as I see it , that's why leaders are paid with money from my pocket. The state should be reminded at all times that it is expendable, it's citizens are not (when the state thinks it's more important that it's citizens, popular revolt is the consequence, and that tends to lead to people being shot, or having body parts lopped off).
We'll see how it goes. I'm paciently awaiting HL2...
;) just give a run though are welcome. Serious Sam is pretty but too crazy-go-nuts-yet-overly-repetative for me.
;), there can't be a high res version of his player model too (I know it takes time - and thus money - but companies like Lucasarts, have full time model makers and it seems reasonable).
Really? - I think your the only one!
Hell, I wan't it now dammnit!
As for Counter Strike, I think it's a shame the textures and model polycounts are still so low.
A Pentium 200 with a 3dfx Voodoo card is more than adaqute for Counter Strike, but there are hordes of gamers with decent equipment (2+ Ghz systems, with ATI 9500/NVIDA 5600's and upwards) who'd like to be able to get some decent use out of there expensive hardware.
I've got an AMD 2600+ and a Radeon 9700 Pro, it's not even top of the range (might have been 6 months ago) and I'm still struggling to find games which make decent use out of it (e.g. Vice City, which is still great, I can turn on full texture resolution & smoothing, max draw distance, even with 6x FSAA and plenty of light effects there is plenty of room to spare for more polygons). Battlefield 1942 looks nice though. Suggestions for decent and taxing games (that also play well
I think it's disappointing for many mid-to-high (which I consider my system is) and true high end gamers (e.g. AMD 3200/P4 3 Ghz+Hyperthreading & ATI 9700/9800/NVDIA 5800/5900) not to see games with higher polygon models for items and decent texture sets.
I can't see why, if your going to shoot the same damn storm trooper 100 times
35.6% of the voting people accepting the initiative "For a Switzerland without army" on November 26th, 1989, and 21.9% accepting a similar one on December 2nd, 2001, does that sound "little" to you?
That's very interesting.
I wonder if it will change dramatically (i.e. if dissent will increase) now that European neigbours are disbanding/abolishing conscription (I'm thinking of young men looking over their shoulders and seeing them men in other countries don't have to and asking 'Why do we have to do this again?').
I hear the Germans are having some serious logistical problems with it because they offer conscripted social service as an alternative to military serivice and they simply don't have enough civil servants to cover the loss of man power (and seeing the current much less than stellar state of the German economy, I can't see tax revenues being able to cover the recuritment shortfall any time soon).
I certainly wouldn't contend there are plenty of oiks in Mensa now (but god, Gary Bushell) just that was the (well intentioned) backdrop against it was founded against.
To be honest I think Gary Bushell is a not a complete moron though, and the sames goes for Richard Littlejohn - the are just moral vaccums in it for the raitings and shillings.
They must be.
I refuse to think otherwise, the alternative is just _too_ horrible and melts my brain.
Yes I've read a little about the training and it's purpose, (and that effectively every household in Switzerland has a gun, and that the men are trained in it's use) though I admit to not really knowing much about it.
:)
I think a short period of training is not objectionable and does serve the purpose it's intended to (by providing a cheap, yet effective defense force, where each citizen is empowered to defend themselves against invaders, or in theory against a rogue Swiss government), how long does this training (and the referesher course) last though? (I'm genuinely curious
I think that is relevent as the exercise has has surely got to be questionable given the size of of the country and it's defensive capabilties (as the UK, French, Italian, German, Japanese, Austrialian armies (for example) have all individually certainly enough reasources to invade regardless of the presence of a large militia, given their superior equpiment and training [for example, armed militia infantry are no match for arial bombardment, anti personel vehicles, tanks, gunships and chemical agents (including legal chemical agents)]).
While the German forces largely ignored Switzerland due to it's nutrality, had they won the first or second world war I don't think any would be able to doubt that the Swiss would have been in no position to bargin for continued independance or autonomy (for the Axis would have simply have taken out and shot any who resisted, and threatend to execute familes of any resistance, to deter opposition). I mention this purely as an example of why I don't belive the system really has much merit in providing a useful defence force.
I also have very strong issues with only men being forced to do this training, as this is something that makes little sense (as the saying goes "Colt makes all men equal", my implication here being that women are just as capable in being trained in firearms as men).
To me, this is the singularly most odd aspect of behaviour that Swiss culture exhibits (I think the reason I find it particularly odd is the Swiss are known for their even handedness and empowerment of their citizens). I keep hearing that the Swiss don't mind too, that just makes it seem even more bizzare to me! I also find it utterly distasteful that the Swiss state does not offically recognise conscientious objection - which is an extreme act of oppression in my book (and is in direct contravention of the UN Commission for Human Rights, which states that it's a legitimate position for any individual to take), it's also quite ironic given the Swiss attitute to nutrality.
Personally, I would refuse to do it for the reasons outlined above (and be willing to go to jail indenfinately to resist, if I was unable to leave the country). I'd also seek citizenship of another country and return my right to Swiss citizenship in protest.
UK citizens would balk at such an idea and riot in the street (I can just imagine - with some amusement - the millions that turned out to protest against the war in Iraq turning up in the streets of London again, but this time rioting en mass, ala the poll tax riots, ah in the crowded, twisty, difficult-to-defend streets of London that would be a sight!).
It's also an interesting an conflict with US world view because this is the very reason many American's (including the NRA) continue to demand the right to own guns (to prevent the citizens from being bullied by the government).
I don't think continental Europe generally has nearly as much concept as the rights of citizens over the rights of the state as the UK, or more vividly, newer states such as the US, Australia & New Zeland (the US being the keenest). NB: I'm not refering to 'rights of citizens' when I say this, but rather just 'rights of citizens in preference to rights of the state'.
Please don't think I'm attacking Switzerland, I'm just amazed at the seeming difference in cultural attidute of what I belive is an otherwise superb country (that has many policies I think we would do very well to adopt ourselves).
As a UK citizen (also a social democracy, at least by US perceptions) I really quite like Switzerland's model (far more democratic than the UK, which is still tied up with hundreds of years worth of elderly legislation and precident).
On the down side, don't they still have conscription in Switzerland?
I am very anti conscription (except in times of war where it comes essential for the survival of citizens of the state (and/or their civil rights), as in the two previous world wars).
Not least because it's horribly inefficient and the resultant conscripts are worse than useless in performing actual modern military duties (which is not just my opinion, but one backed by the military intelligence community, and a topic previously covered by Janes) but also because I don't think the state should arbitrarily order people around (as I believe the state should serve the people, not the other way round).
Unlike JFK I think people should always question "what the state can do for them" rather than ask "What can I do for the state?" (the state should always have justify it's existence and every tax is levies and spends on bureaucracy and every individual it employs or gives money to for any service or goods, or whenever it asks it's citizens to give up their time or put themselves at risk.
Assuming it's still active are there any plans to abolish conscription in Switzerland (as it has been - or is being - in the rest of Europe)?
I would hope someone who claims to be a member of Mensa[1] would also have read the FAQ and realised that administrators (Roblimo, Taco, et al) do not remove posts form this forum ( see this FAQ article).
/. and are 'part of the furniture'. /. would be better served to print the IP address of all posters than to moderate by removing offending posts, but even that would mean we lose the occational invaluable anonymous post (made by users who fear prosecution, retibution or harresment for posting sensitive information).
The comments are entirely unwarrented, but not uncommon, social misfits abound on
-- Comments on Mensa --
[1] (This is entirely off topic, and not intended as a Troll.) I believe Mensa is an entirely undesirable institution created in the 1940's by English upper middle members of society FOR upper middle class members of society, to provide a comfort layer of separation between the great British middle classes and the oiks that make up the vast majority of the population. Though an on-going thread through-out the history of many cultures, is was something that was a particular worry for the British middle classes in years following the end of World War II (where well intentioned thoughts were turning to new world order, and on ways to achieve it, as evident not least from literature and media produced at the time).
I believe that distinction and separation of individuals by characteristics that are predominantly outside of there control (and so for all intents and purposes may be considered 'genetic', though that literally might not be the case) is utterly undesirable and is damaging to society as a whole. In the longer term, is equally as damaging as the separation of individuals based on any other physical characteristic (such as skin colour), but unlike distinction of individuals based of visible genetic differences it's far more subtle.
It's also evident to me that existing measurements of intelligence (including the systems used by Mensa) are dubious to say the least - measurement of an individuals ability to solve problems is useful (as are measurements of there numbers and literacy, which are often part of such tests), but they not a useful factor in determining the actual intelligence of an individual, as this relies to a myriad of other intangible factors (factors that are technically quantifiable - to a degree - when taken individually, but the difficulty lies in determining which factors to test and the importance of each in relation to the other parts, which requires a complex matrix model which we are far from being able to simulate).
As an excellent example, you don't yet understand how moderation on forum works, nor did you have enough nous to read the FAQ when signing up (where it is explained quite clearly in entirely unambiguous terms). I only point this out as it's an excellent example of how the measurement of IQ is flawed beyond usefulness for it's stated purpose. I don't say this to attack you personally (for we all make mistakes and goading or gloating over others mistakes is seldom of benefit), but just to prove a point: if someone is unable to read a manual (as it were), then any measurement which shows they are superior in Intelligence to others (who _have_ read the FAQ and/or who were able to 'grok' the moderation system intuitively) should surely be called into question.
When I think of a group like Mensa, it conjures up images of utopian, socialist (and far from democratic) state led by 'the best and brightest of society' - this was of course the backdrop of a vision of future against which the group was founded. The phrases "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" and "The best laid plans of mice and men gang aft agley" spring immediately to my mind.
I feel a deep sense of mistrust in anyone who exhibits a desire to join any faction which separates themselves from the rest of the population though a means of elitism that stems from a belief that they are in any way superior to other members of the human race.
It represents an indulgence in a darker aspect of human behaviour that should be guarded against.
Do they work without semi-transparency? Microsoft Internet Explorer has correctly handled binary transparency in indexed PNG images since at least version 4.
My project only uses basic (binary) transparency. Having not tried it under IE recently (just tested it just now) it does actually now work fine without the Direct X hack, which was the only way I could get it to work before.
I was having some issues with libpng before (on a Solaris system), I assume it was screwing up the transparencies in some way.
Now, it looks fine (so yay!).
(Actually, the above isn't strictly true as I do use multiple layers of transparency, but that's just for addtional easy of use so that users can see what's behind an item when they are dragging it, which is useful in complex views).
Working accessibility and internationalization into your design at early stages is easier than working them in at later stages.
Been there before, I've had to deal with encoding for not just European languages, but Russian and Japanese before, and I'm constantly switching between platforms (Linux, BSD, Solaris, Mac OS X, Windows). I've also developed for multiple device profiles at once, which is one of the reasons behind the idea of having libraries to render HTML.
all you need to do is get somebody else to implement an alternate interface
I'm still working on that, I have to add a handful of additional features before it will start to interest people, then I will be able to go back over things I've deliberately skipped over and lay some more ground work for future development.
One think I think a few other people are missing out is that I'm making a deliberate approach, from experience, on finding a balance between ground work and getting a usable product out.
I've done what I consider to be the important ground work (DB interface, IO, file locking, etc), and have skipped over a few things like not using SQL as the language for data extraction (or even having a formal API for data extraction).
If I did all the ground work first, I'd have nothing to show for months, as I know from experience, and I've never wanted that. I'd rather build a useful application (i.e. solid IO, good error handling, humane interface) and go back and re-write parts later (e.g. re-write procedural functions as OO functions). Once you get over a hurdle (where you have a usable but basic product) it's easy to go back, tidy a few loose ends and work in a completely structured fashion from then on, because there is much more momentum behind the product.
Also think it's a bit futile to set things in stone at the begining and write API's before you need them because they invariably need changing anyway (though obviously this is not a sensible idea for a really _large_ multiuser project where there is no central dictator).
What a bizzare statement...
You comment completely bypasses the idea of time (as viewed by us mere mortals) as a linear construct.
If I'm doing (a) how can I possibly do (b) at the same time? My time is obviously a finite resource.
I'm either going to be adding new features OR adding an additional interface support for the blind. Even with the API hooks for rendering widgets (which are mostly present, explicity for text and low bandwidth users) I would still need to do the work at some point.
It's not as if they fairies are going to do it (as my mother was fond of saying when I was child).
1) That's obviously utter bullshit, because not every item of US government software is usable by the blind.
2) I'm not an American, nor do I live in the US, so why, exactly, would I give a rats ass?
3) Even if I was a US citizen, I'd stay in the private sector, not the public sector because it pays *much* better.
4) Just beacause I make free GNU software that isn't specialy geared towards blind people doesn't bar me from getting a contract with any government in the world.
Apologies in advanced for a simplistic and obvious question but...
What's the best way to get funding for a project, assuming the project is at some sort of usable prototype stage already (i.e. who should you approach, what ground work should be done)? How should one court potential sponsors? Is it better to wait for them to come to you, or should you present a formal funding request in a format similar to that of a traditional business plan?
Being blind doesn't make someone a misfit or oddball.
How many blind users to you actually think out there looking for a project management tool?
The reality is not many, and certainly not enough to make worth my while diverting resources away from other (real, as opposed to hypothetical) users.
The program already outputs (and reads in) valid XML for all the data storage (project data, user accounts, permission levels, category & priority definitions) so if any one wants to add support they can, but I've already done my part.
The result of IE's lack of alpha channel support is that your app doesn't look as good, not that "it doesn't work"
Actually without transparency, it doesn't work well at all because interface elements (e.g. the tabs, GANTT view) become confusing without transparency. Unlike you I don't think malformed elements are acceptable or workable.
If a user has to spend time trying to workout how to use a tool for project management because the interface is poorly designed, or broken, that means the tool isn't working (the tool is supposed to save time by allowing you to organise how time is spent, it's not meant to be a device to use up your time).
Ultimately, the decision comes down to:
1) Delay a lot of features I was planning to add, by having (and maintaining) a second text mode only interface.
2) Delay a few features I was planning to add by re-writing the interface and making it less friendly for the existing users but simple enough that it will be useable by text mode only users.
3) Add features that I was planning to thus pleasing >99% of users (but not to anything more for blind people, people who can't read English or people who can't use mice, or other users with similarly non main stream requirements).
I think providing open sourced GLP'd software, with documented API's and XML data formats is doing enough. I choose option 3 and leave the additional features to be written by those that want to add them. I will address the issues of disabled users, mobile users and non English speakers after, and only after - I have satisfied the needs of the majority of users. It's cold, hard and practicle.
In closing I note that you wouldn't complain if I used QT or GTK for widget generation: The only reason I'm using an HTML based interface in the first place is so that it's as accessible as possible (so that users don't need to install additional client software, they simply need a relatively main stream graphical web browser, like IE, Netscape, Mozilla, Galeon, Safari or Konqueror).
Ah yes, cheers.
r .html
This was actually what I was refering to when I (seemingly incorrectly) said 'VB hack'.
Example: http://webfx.eae.net/dhtml/pngbehavior/pngbehavio
No that's not true, I shouldn't make it accessible to every user. User bases, like society at large, are full of mistfits and oddballs who have to be ignored in order to deliver a useful tool to the majority in a timely and efficent manner.
I know people who don't use a graphical interface, for example. I'm not going to spend time pleasing them when I could be adding new features that would improve the lot of >95% of other users.
My project is a project management tool which relies heavily on graphical representations of data. It's not possible to repesent all of the information in nearly as meaningful a way using no images. Expandable and collapseable thread views, Gantt charts, bar graphs and pie charts are never going to work in any useable sense in Lynx. I can make it 'bearable', but never actually very 'useful'.
I do not intend to add a text only version at the expense of adding new features, a text only version is very low down my list (however, it's designed to be easy for someone else to add simple HTML, WAP and text only interfaces if they wish).
Lastly I don't think that having an FAQ to explain why it doesn't work for 90+ % of users is an acceptable solution.
Curiously, does IE support more than one alpha channel with PNG?
I looked at this a few months ago and I think the answer was: Yes, *but* you need to use additional VB to 'use' multiple layers of transparency.
But I could be wrong...
It's certainly not straight forward.
At the weekend I removed all the GIF's from my project and replaced them with PNG's, because I'd had a submission (understadably) rejected to savannah.gnu.org because of this issue.
I'd only been using GIF's because my project outputs web pages and uses transparent images to render a nice customisable user interface (e.g. tabs) in a way that can only be achived with transparent images - and realistically most people use IE and it has problems with PNG transparency that would require me to use lots of VB scripting in IE just to get IE to behave in the manner I wanted.
Does this mean free GNU projects will be able to use GIF's, or are there still other parent related issues with GIF images?
Lol, you think Kernel modules are only there to offer additional _hardware_ support? Wow you are clueless!
I wonder what in the hell kind of hardware you think lids, secmod and kmonte and supposed to support...
(Oh and hint: You can't get equal functionality natively with FreeBSD, as they are kernel modules, not binaries.).
As for '3 months minimum of dedicated work' to setup service monitoring and administration tools...
*boggle*
Just how slow a coder are you?
Hint (if your too slow at Perl to be able to write the tools yourself within 3 months):
Go to Freshmeat, download, compile and install tools you need (if your experienced, you'll know the tools you need and how to use them as you'll have used them before) and create a unifying interface (e.g. Web based).
It's really not difficult and if it's taking you 3 months, you are amazingly slow (and should maybe improve your skill base more before commenting on this topic, or consider a less taxing vocation).
Actually, I'm including all the factors you've aluded to. I'm not being naive. I'm quoting from experience, I maintain clustered environments for a living (and I personally own x86, Sun Solaris and Apple Power PC systems to boot).
Your massively over over estimating the additional ease of use gained from using an xserve via any other Unix platform (or even Windows NT). It's easier, but there isn't much in it unless you've very little Unix experience.
I agree that xserve's are easier to administrate, I like their administration tools, BUT if you are going to have a large amount of equipment you are going to need a competant engineer in any case.
Apple don't make NAS's, SAN's, NMS's, switches or routers, and only an experienced engineer can tell you how to *use* the equipment in a sensible manner (anyone can get it to 'work', but not 'well' - i.e. not efficently, cost effectively, reliably, securely, quickly or in a resiliant manner).
So, having established the need for a full time engineer, we come to how should does engineer (or that team of engineers) spend their time?
A single experienced engineer can re-create all the functionality of Apple's xserver monitoring/administration tools using exisiting free software within a in a week. Cricket, SNMP, Perl/GTK/Python/Ruby/Shell/TCL/TK scripts can all be used to give you a mangement platform even easier to use (and maintain) than Apple's tools.
And even if you didn't want to do that, Red Hat have parallel GUI tools on their Server and Advanced Server editions.
You can also do more with Linux that you can with Mac OS X (or even other BSD's, or commercial operating systems such as a stock build of Solaris).
The wealth of Linux kernel modules and Linux-only software make this possible. All systems have there advantages. but you can do far more with eve n FreeBSD and OpenBSD than you can with Mac OS X.
So, all of this did enter my world view, it's just that I'm clearly quite a few steps ahead.
Why would I want to spend 500 USD extra per server if it only costs 1 week of an engineers time to build in the extra functionality I want? Once they have written the tool, that's it, you have an image you can install on all the boxes.
*That's* why it only make sense for those (like design firms, schools, and small collages) who arn't going to shell out for a full time administrator, for anyone who isn't a full time admistrator it's not going to make there lives noticeably easier, and it may even get in the way (because they can't use that additional modules or software they want to run because it's not been ported to Mac OS X / PPC).
I agree, I've developed quite a lot in Perl, and multi-tiered functions and modules (with clear, obvious and documented pruposes) are the way to go.
e =>$username,retur n=>"realname");
:(
I'd never want to embed SQL/LDAP/etc calls in a page and I always cringe when I see that. I'd rather have a function:
get_user_realname($username);
which might call:
db_connect();
db_get_data(key=>'username',valu
db_close();
return($realname);
(and then I'd right db_connect, db_get_data, db_close as my own functions so I can easily change the modules I use to connect to the DB at a later date).
This way it's much easier to do elegant error handling and to optimise code (as you can easily identify bottle necks).
Non structured code is a maintenance nightware and something done by bad web developers who are either incompotent or would rather they look good for the boss than spend time doing something properly (and ultimately doing the Right Thing for their employer in the long run).
It think this is one of the problems of PHP - it's easy to use, but does not enforce any structure, so those with no design knowledge (or aptitude) can get stuck in and turn out nightmare FPOS software by the bucket load. You can do this with Perl too, but ultimately I think some of the additional complexities of Perl beat this out of most users after a while and they end up being better developers in the long run (because like it or not they end up learning things).
Ultimately however, some people are dumb-as-stump and won't ever be able to churn out sensible C/C++, Java, Perl, PHP or even VB.