A lot of the trouble I have with MS Windows falls into two categories.
Many programs were designed and built by people who took "personal computer" to heart and never bothered to learn to think in terms of a computer that might be used by several different people, perhaps even concurrently. These ignore security, don't handle separation of user and system storage or configuration gracefully, etc. Let's do better this time.
Other products suffer from the fallacy that computer==desktop. They assume that they're always run by someone who can just barely find the power button, and that they're always guided manually by someone sitting right there ready to respond to trouble. It ain't so; some of us actually care enough to spend time thinking about how best to use computers, and some of us want to script regular processes and get away from all that manual drudgery (which is what we made computers for in the first place).
If "the rise of Linux on the desktop" means I don't have to fight so hard for a non-MS solution in the server room or the laboratory, hooray. If it means I'm stuck with a choice between MS Windows and something that's just like MS Windows only not from MS, then in my view there's been no improvement -- in fact, an improvement we had for a while will have been taken from us.
We have a chance to do it right this time. Let's seize that chance and run with it. All computers should not be alike, because all computerists are not alike.
The article complains that there's nothing for playing with digital photos on Linux. (1) I'm not sure I agree; I think they just haven't found it yet. Contrary to what many business types would tell you, some of the best things in life are not advertised. (2) All it takes is one person who wants some program badly enough to code it up and give it away, and the "missing" software becomes available, worldwide. That's how we got Linux, and all the userspace that runs on top of it, in the first place.
You don't think the party bosses would allow anyone *smart* to run for office? Intellectually challenged people with photogenic grins make much better puppets.
Most people probably have a big enough stack of AOL CDs in the closet to stay in business for a couple of months no matter how fast they get shut down.
I doubt a 486/25 would even get warm from the amount of work it could do when it's bottlenecked by a consumer-grade ISP hookup. You could push the utilization up a little by linking to your broadband box through a really simple NIC like an NE2000-clone, I suppose.
Re:CPU hour, not normal hour
on
Paid To Spam
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Indeed, a Windows service is just a process started by the service controller. It could be running at top priority and starving everything else in the system, if it's set up to do that.
Even at lowest priority it'll get all the cycles no one else demands, which could be just shy of 100% all night long (plus most of the day, while you're at work or in class or whatever). Viewed over a 24-hour period, the vast majority of computers nowadays have essentially zero load.
Oh, it must be them. When that other thingy came out, which tried to DOS Microsoft, the target's identity was accepted as conclusive proof that it was written by Linux hackers, so why not apply the same standards of logic to this one?
Re: Everything, including tools, in moderation!
on
UML Fever
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The way I read that quote, the idea is not to pick and choose the rules you like, but rather to throw out the whole thing if it is not working for you. If pounding nails in with the butt of a screwdriver is not getting the job done right, don't put a different handle on the screwdriver; get a hammer.
I see here a reaction to something I'd noted myself: for a number of developers, OO ceases to be a tool in the toolbag and becomes their religion -- they want to evangelize all of the unconverted, and strive to see every aspect of life through the OO lens. The book I'm reading right now contains some side-splitting examples of using the OO sledgehammer to crack a programming peanut, and I'm sorry to say that in my experience this practice is not confined to tutorial material.
There's a step that comes before "what's the best way to code this?" It's "what's the best way to *design* this?"
I think a lot of people buy the low priced product because recent experience has shown that the higher priced product is not really any better at what they want it to do, just more expensive.
How much lead is there in a microprocessor anyway? A slab of highly purified silicon, a few traces of indium...what else?
I would be more worried about the much larger amount of copper in a PC. It's a nasty pollutant, too.
Re:I've set up a GNU/Linux machine for my kids too
on
A Babe in Tuxland
·
· Score: 1
Hear, hear. My 1993-vintage DECpc LPx (i486SX 33mHz, 40mb) runs Linux, X and FVWM just fine and turns in quite respectable performance with the stuff I run. OTOH those integrated-desktop gadgets are slow even on an essentially idle dual Xeon 2gHz 2GB system.
I find MS Windows more difficult to fix than Linux. On Linux there are not 69 layers of software in my way, each dedicated to protecting me from finding out what really happened. On Linux I can grab the controls and try stuff; on MS Windows there's nothing to try except "install it again".
Installing a driver for that new wireless card? On MS Windows: click here, click there, click everywhere, futz with wizards for five minutes, maybe it works. On Linux: cp, insmod, ifconfig, working.
I *have* seen stuff on Linux that is as hard to use as MS Windows. It's always stuff that tries to make Linux more like MS Windows.
Re:Uh...anyone see a double-standard?
on
A Babe in Tuxland
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yes, but I don't see this one as a problem. There are special rules for giants. One of Microsoft's problems is that they behave as if they were still a tiny startup instead of a dominant force in their industry. You are not allowed to beat up on the little kids, but the little kids are allowed to hit back.
Um, so newborns should be part of the unemployment figure because they don't have jobs? That's what "the unemployed" ought to mean, strictly speaking, but the result would be a strikingly useless number.
The phrase usually means "people who are seeking employment but haven't found it." That is a very useful number. Those who aren't seeking, don't get counted. If you want to be counted, show up where they're counting.
Hmmm, U.S. companies making robots. Unimation? Cincinnati Milacron? I'm sure I left out a bunch of others. They don't make flashy public-spectacle robots, so they're a bit harder to remember.
Either way it's still just a lot of gee-whiz, showoff stuff. The autonomous-vehicle contest a couple of weeks ago, and the annual firefighting robot competition, show us machines that are (as yet) less successful, but FAR more impressive even when they fail.
Yeah, maybe one day in addition to dancing they'll even be able to do something useful.
Humans can dance. Many humans even enjoy dancing. What's the point of building a machine unless it does something that we can't or would rather not do?
The trouble seems to stem from fundamental disagreements about what it's most important to spend the money *on*. You're clearly aware that lots of people would dispute your position on school taxes (though I'm not one of 'em). There's too much "it's all about *my* priorities" and not nearly enough "my priorities are important, but so are yours."
Of course, the more complexity, the easier it is for cheaters to hide. If our hired help in D.C. were serious about collecting our taxes fully, the tax code would be a pamphlet, not an encyclopedia.
Slashdot Mirror
It took over my desktop in about 1994. The stuff most people seem to mean when they say "desktop" came later.
A lot of the trouble I have with MS Windows falls into two categories.
Many programs were designed and built by people who took "personal computer" to heart and never bothered to learn to think in terms of a computer that might be used by several different people, perhaps even concurrently. These ignore security, don't handle separation of user and system storage or configuration gracefully, etc. Let's do better this time.
Other products suffer from the fallacy that computer==desktop. They assume that they're always run by someone who can just barely find the power button, and that they're always guided manually by someone sitting right there ready to respond to trouble. It ain't so; some of us actually care enough to spend time thinking about how best to use computers, and some of us want to script regular processes and get away from all that manual drudgery (which is what we made computers for in the first place).
If "the rise of Linux on the desktop" means I don't have to fight so hard for a non-MS solution in the server room or the laboratory, hooray. If it means I'm stuck with a choice between MS Windows and something that's just like MS Windows only not from MS, then in my view there's been no improvement -- in fact, an improvement we had for a while will have been taken from us.
We have a chance to do it right this time. Let's seize that chance and run with it. All computers should not be alike, because all computerists are not alike.
The article complains that there's nothing for playing with digital photos on Linux. (1) I'm not sure I agree; I think they just haven't found it yet. Contrary to what many business types would tell you, some of the best things in life are not advertised. (2) All it takes is one person who wants some program badly enough to code it up and give it away, and the "missing" software becomes available, worldwide. That's how we got Linux, and all the userspace that runs on top of it, in the first place.
You don't think the party bosses would allow anyone *smart* to run for office? Intellectually challenged people with photogenic grins make much better puppets.
Most people probably have a big enough stack of AOL CDs in the closet to stay in business for a couple of months no matter how fast they get shut down.
I doubt a 486/25 would even get warm from the amount of work it could do when it's bottlenecked by a consumer-grade ISP hookup. You could push the utilization up a little by linking to your broadband box through a really simple NIC like an NE2000-clone, I suppose.
Indeed, a Windows service is just a process started by the service controller. It could be running at top priority and starving everything else in the system, if it's set up to do that.
Even at lowest priority it'll get all the cycles no one else demands, which could be just shy of 100% all night long (plus most of the day, while you're at work or in class or whatever). Viewed over a 24-hour period, the vast majority of computers nowadays have essentially zero load.
Oh, it must be them. When that other thingy came out, which tried to DOS Microsoft, the target's identity was accepted as conclusive proof that it was written by Linux hackers, so why not apply the same standards of logic to this one?
The way I read that quote, the idea is not to pick and choose the rules you like, but rather to throw out the whole thing if it is not working for you. If pounding nails in with the butt of a screwdriver is not getting the job done right, don't put a different handle on the screwdriver; get a hammer.
I see here a reaction to something I'd noted myself: for a number of developers, OO ceases to be a tool in the toolbag and becomes their religion -- they want to evangelize all of the unconverted, and strive to see every aspect of life through the OO lens. The book I'm reading right now contains some side-splitting examples of using the OO sledgehammer to crack a programming peanut, and I'm sorry to say that in my experience this practice is not confined to tutorial material.
There's a step that comes before "what's the best way to code this?" It's "what's the best way to *design* this?"
I think a lot of people buy the low priced product because recent experience has shown that the higher priced product is not really any better at what they want it to do, just more expensive.
How much lead is there in a microprocessor anyway? A slab of highly purified silicon, a few traces of indium...what else?
I would be more worried about the much larger amount of copper in a PC. It's a nasty pollutant, too.
Hear, hear. My 1993-vintage DECpc LPx (i486SX 33mHz, 40mb) runs Linux, X and FVWM just fine and turns in quite respectable performance with the stuff I run. OTOH those integrated-desktop gadgets are slow even on an essentially idle dual Xeon 2gHz 2GB system.
It depends on what "difficult" means to you.
I find MS Windows more difficult to fix than Linux. On Linux there are not 69 layers of software in my way, each dedicated to protecting me from finding out what really happened. On Linux I can grab the controls and try stuff; on MS Windows there's nothing to try except "install it again".
Installing a driver for that new wireless card? On MS Windows: click here, click there, click everywhere, futz with wizards for five minutes, maybe it works. On Linux: cp, insmod, ifconfig, working.
I *have* seen stuff on Linux that is as hard to use as MS Windows. It's always stuff that tries to make Linux more like MS Windows.
Yes, but I don't see this one as a problem. There are special rules for giants. One of Microsoft's problems is that they behave as if they were still a tiny startup instead of a dominant force in their industry. You are not allowed to beat up on the little kids, but the little kids are allowed to hit back.
Um, so newborns should be part of the unemployment figure because they don't have jobs? That's what "the unemployed" ought to mean, strictly speaking, but the result would be a strikingly useless number.
The phrase usually means "people who are seeking employment but haven't found it." That is a very useful number. Those who aren't seeking, don't get counted. If you want to be counted, show up where they're counting.
Okay, *now* I'm impressed, but this makes me wonder all the more, why waste all that capability on reproducing some human conductor's motions?
I still think Shakey is more impressive, and he's old enough to have a whole brood of grandrobots by now.
And *you've* been listening to John Denver. ("Blow Up Your TV")
You've been reading Keith Laumer's "Bolo" stories again, have you?
Hmmm, U.S. companies making robots. Unimation? Cincinnati Milacron? I'm sure I left out a bunch of others. They don't make flashy public-spectacle robots, so they're a bit harder to remember.
Is that anything like the "band" at Chuck E. Cheese? Or the homebrew animatronic band in _A Goofy Movie_?
There are concert ensembles which perform without a conductor. They work out the kinks of the performance team-wise, somehow.
Either way it's still just a lot of gee-whiz, showoff stuff. The autonomous-vehicle contest a couple of weeks ago, and the annual firefighting robot competition, show us machines that are (as yet) less successful, but FAR more impressive even when they fail.
Yeah, maybe one day in addition to dancing they'll even be able to do something useful.
Humans can dance. Many humans even enjoy dancing. What's the point of building a machine unless it does something that we can't or would rather not do?
The trouble seems to stem from fundamental disagreements about what it's most important to spend the money *on*. You're clearly aware that lots of people would dispute your position on school taxes (though I'm not one of 'em). There's too much "it's all about *my* priorities" and not nearly enough "my priorities are important, but so are yours."
Of course, the more complexity, the easier it is for cheaters to hide. If our hired help in D.C. were serious about collecting our taxes fully, the tax code would be a pamphlet, not an encyclopedia.