Argh, the gallery slide show does not work in Mozilla.
It's ok; it's not a big deal, but in case anybody is taking a count of the number of things that are non-standard and IE-specific, feel free add this to your list.
I think you're confusing the open source paradigm with one of its traditions. Open source projects have traditionally developed software that's efficient but hard to use, hence its attractiveness to a relatively intelligent crowd--or at least one that can accept tedious documentation-reading. Consider GNU Info, GnuPG, Emacs, Vi, lynx, Tex/LaTex, or even the manual page mechanism.
Open source projects like Mozilla and OpenOffice, on the other hand have a friendly self-documenting 0-learning-curve interface; simultaneously they're the software items that open-source advocates tout will break the mainstream barrier.
What it comes down to is a matter of interface and documentation. From the user perspective, open source software has worked like this:
read manual -> practice -> read more -> use
Mainstream software works more like this:
try using -> use
Mainstream software is not something I'm going to have to study in order to use; rather it's something that I can learn by trying out.
Fortunately open source software is already becoming more intuitive. For example:
I use Red Hat 8. How do I...
write email?
Menu > Internet > Email
browse the web?
Menu > Internet > Web Browser
send instant messages?
Menu > Internet > Instant Messenger
scan a document?
Menu > Graphics > Scanning
write a document?
Menu > Office > Writer
draw a diagram?
Menu > Office > Diagrams
change the desktop background?
Menu > Preferences > Background
Anyway, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the open source paradigm; it's all a matter of choice of interface, and one can see already that in the newest distributions--like Red Hat 8.0--that the interface is becoming more acceptable for mainstream use.
Sorry I forgot to include a description of just what they do. From the WCE website:
"World Computer Exchange (WCE) is a global nonprofit organization committed to helping the world's poorest youth bridge the disturbing global divides in information, technology and understanding. WCE does this by keeping donated PCs, Macs, and Laptops out of landfills and giving them new life connecting youth to the Internet in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. WCE leverages the resources of businesses, strategic allies, volunteers, schools, and their community service programs to help WCE partners to prepare and train the schools, teachers, and students they recruit to use the Internet as a bridge to information, resources, educational materials, and new opportunities."
The DEI is one of the subprojects:
"The Digital Equalizer Project is a project to bring together US and Indian organizations working to promote the use of Information &Communications Technology in India."
Instead of recycling your old pc hardware, donate it instead through the World Computer Exchange. Hardware donations are a real boon to the people (especially children) of third world countries. Projects like the Goa Schools Computers Projects and the Digital Equalizer Initiative help provide the less fortunate w/such hardware and train them to use it, too. The DEI also accepts donations.
In my experience, very young people typically have few problems learning to use Linux, because they often aren't accustomed to using something else.
I didn't really start using a computer until my freshman year at college; I started out using Windows 98. The following summer I installed Red Hat 6.2, and I ended up using it full time w/few complaints. Interestingly, all my friends who thought the change was "pretty hardcore" had all grown up using Windows. Since I had really nothing to switch from, the transition was pretty easy.
Since your children are all relatively young, I don't imagine Windows is the only language they'll ever be able to speak, so by all means let them use Linux while it's easy for them. If you want them to play their old games, then run a dual-boot until they outgrow that software, and just stop buying new versions of Windows!
Of course, he likes the light on the optical mouse and is always reaching for it and trying to chew on it...
Maybe you should keep him away from the mouse. I'm not sure whether those mouse lasers are actually damaging to eyeballs; all I could find on the matter was this story.
But anyway if when I look into the mouse laser my eyes hurt a little bit, it can't be good for a 9-month-old baby.
800mb/s? Do you think that means 800 megabytes per second? Try 800mbps, as in megabits per second, which is 100 megabytes per second. I think ATA133 beats that.
I don't even know where you're getting this 800 figure; last I heard it was 400.
Re:Or you could just...
on
Xandros 1.0
·
· Score: 1
Then I show them a Linux machine, and tell them that the reason it's better, is because it's nothing like Windows.
One reason to use some Linux distro is because it's nothing like Windows.
One reason to use some other Linux distro is because it's exactly like Windows.
The reason Microsoft software is so ubiquitous isn't just because it's "Microsoft software." I imagine that part of the reason ppl buy MS is because it's MS, but the big overarching reason why people buy Windows and MS Office is because by and large those are good products.
MS products have good features, look good, are sufficiently stable, are pleasant to use, require little configuration, and work with any hardware you can find. This is mostly why people use MS Software, and these reasons entail the quality of the product.
Otherwise, people buy MS software b/c almost everybody already uses it, and this reason entails the identity of the product--that is, Microsoft.
I can understand what you dislike about a whole bunch of Linux distributions trying to emulate Windows: it's sick; it's the idolatry of the Bill Gates Software God. But maybe you're missing something about the motivation.
What if a bunch of GPL-believers actually made a Linux distribution that looked and functioned exactly like MS Windows? It's got the XP interface; it supports ANY hardware that's designed for windows; it runs ANY software that's designed for Windows. What if that distribution looks and works just like Windows (minus the bugs) but ran the Linux Kernel, Mozilla, and Open Office instead? Don't you think somebody's going to take notice and that this distribution will make a whole lot of difference in the world?
The great motivation behind creating a "Windows-like" Linux distribution is to make a GPL-ed product that does all the great things Windows does, not to make something that mimics Microsoft. You're confusing the importance of objective functionality with the embarassment subjective brand-imitation. If I were you, I'd give these guys a second chance.
Just where can you buy one of these? Who has ever heard of Verax or Herolchi, anyway? I searched on google, pricewatch, and newegg; and I couldn't find anything but a single Fortron offering.
I've always had a really hard time finding these "secret" premium low-noise components. I would love to make my desktop quieter, and I would love to believe that these products will do the job. But if they're so awesome, why doesn't anybody sell them?
This has been up for a little while at OSNews, but I think it's really funny that this new Unix Code Migration Guide suddenly appears at roughly the same time Bloomberg runs an article in which Steve Ballmer says, "People are saying by and large, `It might be easier for me to move my Unix apps to Linux than to Windows,' although we're pretty close to making that untrue."
I guess they're doing their best to make sure that that's "untrue."
Hey, that's not an interesting observation, but didn't you notice that the whole point of Apple's "Switch" campaign is to convince everybody that Macs are just easier to use / friendlier / more powerful / prettier / slicker / superior to pc's that run Windows?
You're right about this one, apparently: the redhat-logos package, and additionally the anaconda-images package, are licensed under something red hat wrote rather than the gpl:
$ rpm -qi redhat-logos Name : redhat-logos
. .. License: Copyright ? 1999-2002 Red Hat, Inc. All rights reserved.
. ..
These packages include a file on copying. Here's a n excerpt from that file:
The redhat-logos package and the anaconda-images package (the "Packages") contain image files which incorporate the RED HAT trademark, Red Hat "Shadow Man" logo and the RPM logo (the "Marks"). RED HAT, the Red Hat "Shadow Man" logo, RPM, and the RPM logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Red Hat, Inc. in the United States and other countries.
Red Hat, Inc. grants you the right to use the Packages during the normal operation of other software programs that call upon the Packages. Red Hat, Inc. grants to you the right and license to copy and redistribute the unaltered Packages, but only in conjunction with copying or redistributing additional software packages that call upon the Packages during the normal course of operation and only in non-commercial distributions permitted under Red Hat's trademark guidelines found at www.redhat.com/about/trademark_guidelines.html or under a separate written license agreement from Red Hat. Red Hat, Inc. grants to you the right and license to copy and redistribute the Packages in commercial distributions without additional license or permission, but only in conjunction with copying or redistributing additional software packages that call upon the Packages during the normal course of operation and only when all of the Marks have been removed or replaced within the Packages.
So this is all about the Shadow Man and RPM logos. According to the license, you can still redistribute red hat in its entirety, provided you don't make any money off of the redistribution. If you do want to redistribute Red Hat in a commercial fashion, however, you're permitted to do so "only when all of the Marks have been removed or replaced within the Packages."
Actually, variety is exactly what you're getting when Red Hat does some work to create a unified desktop that didn't exist before. Now we have GNOME, KDE, and Red Hat's own creation.
If you don't like Red Hat's desktop, try out another one.
Right, I don't think there's anything wrong with Red Hat, and I think this is just poor journalism because this story is more sensational than it is important.
You could make a comparison b/w Red Hat and Microsoft by citing how both companies tend to make decisions against the grain and force them through the door--gcc 2.96, for instance. Among its strange decision, Red Hat decided some time to change the order files and directories get listed when you invoke `ls'; starting with version 7 (I think?), capitalized names no longer came before lower-cased names, and dot-files have been mixed in with the non-dot files. Any clue why they did this?
ATI doesn't have a history of releasing the most reliable drivers, but that doesn't mean their cards are no good for XFree86 systems.
Unlike nVidia, ATI has chosen to support open source development for their cards rather than produce their own closed-source drivers. Consequently, nVidia has a set of good drivers for both Windows and Linux, but no one but them knows anything about their implementation or their hardware specs; ATI, on the other hand, produces no XFree86 drivers of their own, but they've given some support to open source efforts, and now we have a set of open source drivers that work pretty well, although they're still in development.
ATI did a good thing by providing developer resources to the whole community, because now we have an open-source software implementation that will last forever and important hardware information that anybody can implement a driver for. The difference between nVidia's and ATI's policies are analogous to offering a man a fish, as opposed to teaching him how.
I hope the government won't insist on keeping the masonic symbols that they print on the one dollar bill. Those symbols are relics of a dead paradigm that was always followed by a minority and thus should not appear on anything as significant and pervasive as the US National ID card.
As far as I know, the free masons fashioned themselves to be cryptic, disguised, and ubiquitous; the dollar bill is exactly where they want to put their symbol, because (1) everybody sees it all the time, yet (2) nobody knows what it means. But those are the masons, and I just wonder: what the hell was the government thinking when they pasted that bizarre symbol on its currency? If they embed it into a 21st century ID card, it's not going to make any sense at all!
That Penguin Airlines is touting its employment of Linux in its business and aircraft sounds novel for the free software movement, but should anything ever go wrong on one of their "heavily computerized jets," their problems just might become one of the most infamous software engineering mistakes of all time--and a dark stain on the reputation of open source software.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoops, nevermind. It does work; I think something was broken on my computer. =P
Argh, the gallery slide show does not work in Mozilla.
It's ok; it's not a big deal, but in case anybody is taking a count of the number of things that are non-standard and IE-specific, feel free add this to your list.
Open source projects like Mozilla and OpenOffice, on the other hand have a friendly self-documenting 0-learning-curve interface; simultaneously they're the software items that open-source advocates tout will break the mainstream barrier.
What it comes down to is a matter of interface and documentation. From the user perspective, open source software has worked like this:
read manual -> practice -> read more -> use
Mainstream software works more like this:
try using -> use
Mainstream software is not something I'm going to have to study in order to use; rather it's something that I can learn by trying out.
Fortunately open source software is already becoming more intuitive. For example:
I use Red Hat 8. How do I...
Menu > Internet > Email
Menu > Internet > Web Browser
Menu > Internet > Instant Messenger
Menu > Graphics > Scanning
Menu > Office > Writer
Menu > Office > Diagrams
Menu > Preferences > Background
Anyway, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the open source paradigm; it's all a matter of choice of interface, and one can see already that in the newest distributions--like Red Hat 8.0--that the interface is becoming more acceptable for mainstream use.
Sorry, could somebody explain what a BBS is? It looks to me like just a website with a bunch of rated links.
Sorry I forgot to include a description of just what they do. From the WCE website:
"World Computer Exchange (WCE) is a global nonprofit organization committed to helping the world's poorest youth bridge the disturbing global divides in information, technology and understanding. WCE does this by keeping donated PCs, Macs, and Laptops out of landfills and giving them new life connecting youth to the Internet in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. WCE leverages the resources of businesses, strategic allies, volunteers, schools, and their community service programs to help WCE partners to prepare and train the schools, teachers, and students they recruit to use the Internet as a bridge to information, resources, educational materials, and new opportunities."
The DEI is one of the subprojects:
"The Digital Equalizer Project is a project to bring together US and Indian organizations working to promote the use of Information &Communications Technology in India."
Instead of recycling your old pc hardware, donate it instead through the World Computer Exchange. Hardware donations are a real boon to the people (especially children) of third world countries. Projects like the Goa Schools Computers Projects and the Digital Equalizer Initiative help provide the less fortunate w/such hardware and train them to use it, too. The DEI also accepts donations.
In my experience, very young people typically have few problems learning to use Linux, because they often aren't accustomed to using something else.
I didn't really start using a computer until my freshman year at college; I started out using Windows 98. The following summer I installed Red Hat 6.2, and I ended up using it full time w/few complaints. Interestingly, all my friends who thought the change was "pretty hardcore" had all grown up using Windows. Since I had really nothing to switch from, the transition was pretty easy.
Since your children are all relatively young, I don't imagine Windows is the only language they'll ever be able to speak, so by all means let them use Linux while it's easy for them. If you want them to play their old games, then run a dual-boot until they outgrow that software, and just stop buying new versions of Windows!
Of course, he likes the light on the optical mouse and is always reaching for it and trying to chew on it...
Maybe you should keep him away from the mouse. I'm not sure whether those mouse lasers are actually damaging to eyeballs; all I could find on the matter was this story.
But anyway if when I look into the mouse laser my eyes hurt a little bit, it can't be good for a 9-month-old baby.
Debian's installer was a huge hurtle for many people, who would otherwise like to try it.
I kind of want to hurtle this story through a spellchecker.
You're kidding me, right?
800mb/s? Do you think that means 800 megabytes per second? Try 800mbps, as in megabits per second, which is 100 megabytes per second. I think ATA133 beats that.
I don't even know where you're getting this 800 figure; last I heard it was 400.
One reason to use some Linux distro is because it's nothing like Windows.
One reason to use some other Linux distro is because it's exactly like Windows.
The reason Microsoft software is so ubiquitous isn't just because it's "Microsoft software." I imagine that part of the reason ppl buy MS is because it's MS, but the big overarching reason why people buy Windows and MS Office is because by and large those are good products.
I can understand what you dislike about a whole bunch of Linux distributions trying to emulate Windows: it's sick; it's the idolatry of the Bill Gates Software God. But maybe you're missing something about the motivation.
What if a bunch of GPL-believers actually made a Linux distribution that looked and functioned exactly like MS Windows? It's got the XP interface; it supports ANY hardware that's designed for windows; it runs ANY software that's designed for Windows. What if that distribution looks and works just like Windows (minus the bugs) but ran the Linux Kernel, Mozilla, and Open Office instead? Don't you think somebody's going to take notice and that this distribution will make a whole lot of difference in the world?
The great motivation behind creating a "Windows-like" Linux distribution is to make a GPL-ed product that does all the great things Windows does, not to make something that mimics Microsoft. You're confusing the importance of objective functionality with the embarassment subjective brand-imitation. If I were you, I'd give these guys a second chance.
Just where can you buy one of these? Who has ever heard of Verax or Herolchi, anyway? I searched on google, pricewatch, and newegg; and I couldn't find anything but a single Fortron offering.
I've always had a really hard time finding these "secret" premium low-noise components. I would love to make my desktop quieter, and I would love to believe that these products will do the job. But if they're so awesome, why doesn't anybody sell them?
This has been up for a little while at OSNews, but I think it's really funny that this new Unix Code Migration Guide suddenly appears at roughly the same time Bloomberg runs an article in which Steve Ballmer says, "People are saying by and large, `It might be easier for me to move my Unix apps to Linux than to Windows,' although we're pretty close to making that untrue."
I guess they're doing their best to make sure that that's "untrue."
Type ahead find... Interesting...
What the heck is "type ahead find?"
Hey, that's not an interesting observation, but didn't you notice that the whole point of Apple's "Switch" campaign is to convince everybody that Macs are just easier to use / friendlier / more powerful / prettier / slicker / superior to pc's that run Windows?
You're right about this one, apparently: the redhat-logos package, and additionally the anaconda-images package, are licensed under something red hat wrote rather than the gpl:
. .
r under a separate written license agreement from Red Hat. Red Hat,
$ rpm -qi redhat-logos
Name : redhat-logos
. .
License: Copyright ? 1999-2002 Red Hat, Inc. All rights reserved.
. .
These packages include a file on copying. Here's a n excerpt from that file:
The redhat-logos package and the anaconda-images package (the "Packages")
contain image files which incorporate the RED HAT trademark, Red Hat
"Shadow Man" logo and the RPM logo (the "Marks"). RED HAT, the Red Hat
"Shadow Man" logo, RPM, and the RPM logo are trademarks or registered
trademarks of Red Hat, Inc. in the United States and other
countries.
Red Hat, Inc. grants you the right to use the Packages during the
normal operation of other software programs that call upon the
Packages. Red Hat, Inc. grants to you the right and license to copy
and redistribute the unaltered Packages, but only in conjunction with
copying or redistributing additional software packages that call upon
the Packages during the normal course of operation and only in
non-commercial distributions permitted under Red Hat's trademark
guidelines found at www.redhat.com/about/trademark_guidelines.html
o
Inc. grants to you the right and license to copy and redistribute the
Packages in commercial distributions without additional license or
permission, but only in conjunction with copying or redistributing
additional software packages that call upon the Packages during the
normal course of operation and only when all of the Marks have been
removed or replaced within the Packages.
So this is all about the Shadow Man and RPM logos. According to the license, you can still redistribute red hat in its entirety, provided you don't make any money off of the redistribution. If you do want to redistribute Red Hat in a commercial fashion, however, you're permitted to do so "only when all of the Marks have been removed or replaced within the Packages."
Looks like a good compromise to me.
Actually, variety is exactly what you're getting when Red Hat does some work to create a unified desktop that didn't exist before. Now we have GNOME, KDE, and Red Hat's own creation.
If you don't like Red Hat's desktop, try out another one.
Right, I don't think there's anything wrong with Red Hat, and I think this is just poor journalism because this story is more sensational than it is important.
You could make a comparison b/w Red Hat and Microsoft by citing how both companies tend to make decisions against the grain and force them through the door--gcc 2.96, for instance. Among its strange decision, Red Hat decided some time to change the order files and directories get listed when you invoke `ls'; starting with version 7 (I think?), capitalized names no longer came before lower-cased names, and dot-files have been mixed in with the non-dot files. Any clue why they did this?
ATI released Radeon 8500 drivers yesterday. =)
ATI doesn't have a history of releasing the most reliable drivers, but that doesn't mean their cards are no good for XFree86 systems.
Unlike nVidia, ATI has chosen to support open source development for their cards rather than produce their own closed-source drivers. Consequently, nVidia has a set of good drivers for both Windows and Linux, but no one but them knows anything about their implementation or their hardware specs; ATI, on the other hand, produces no XFree86 drivers of their own, but they've given some support to open source efforts, and now we have a set of open source drivers that work pretty well, although they're still in development.
ATI did a good thing by providing developer resources to the whole community, because now we have an open-source software implementation that will last forever and important hardware information that anybody can implement a driver for. The difference between nVidia's and ATI's policies are analogous to offering a man a fish, as opposed to teaching him how.
I hope the government won't insist on keeping the masonic symbols that they print on the one dollar bill. Those symbols are relics of a dead paradigm that was always followed by a minority and thus should not appear on anything as significant and pervasive as the US National ID card.
As far as I know, the free masons fashioned themselves to be cryptic, disguised, and ubiquitous; the dollar bill is exactly where they want to put their symbol, because (1) everybody sees it all the time, yet (2) nobody knows what it means. But those are the masons, and I just wonder: what the hell was the government thinking when they pasted that bizarre symbol on its currency? If they embed it into a 21st century ID card, it's not going to make any sense at all!
That Penguin Airlines is touting its employment of Linux in its business and aircraft sounds novel for the free software movement, but should anything ever go wrong on one of their "heavily computerized jets," their problems just might become one of the most infamous software engineering mistakes of all time--and a dark stain on the reputation of open source software.
A malfunctioning aircraft could be more disasterous than either the Therac-25 accidents or the Patriot Missile failure in Dhahran.
http://kt.zork.net/kernel-traffic/
Batman is the coolest superhero ever. Why? No superpowers. Brains, altheticism, and a raging case of vengance.
You forgot to include about $40 billion in the bank.