I have zero problem with this idea, being a huge GH and RB fan. But, ARCADES?? Do they even still exist?
I'm in my mid-30's, and I grew up in arcades... some of my favorites memories involve arcades. In fact, in my early 20's I was an arcade machine service tech, so I have a lot of experience in arcades.
But, my kids barely know what an arcade is, and they certainly aren't begging me to take them to any. I can't imagine they are much different than most kids today who have all the games at home.
"Black holes do have a solid foundation in theory, and we can observe the gravitational effects they have on their neighbours"
No, to be pedantic and at the same time accurate: we can observe the gravitational effects (OF SOME OBJECT THAT MATCHES WHAT THE MATH SAYS A BLACK WHOLE WOULD BE LIKE) they have on their neighbours.
Black holes are still 100% theoretical, no one can say definitively they exist. It could be that there is some other physical construct that exhibits the same behavior as a black hole.
Now, don't get me wrong: I'm with the rest of the crowd, there's enough empirical evidence to say that black holes are pretty well a fact of life. I have no doubt whatsoever they exist. But we shouldn't ever lose sight of that fact that until we have direct, irrefutable evidence, they are stil only theoretical consequences of mathematics. True, that's been good enough in the past, and probably is here too.
I couldn't care less what they call it... if it works well, and I like using it, they can call it "turd on a stick" for all I care... my fear is that it'll turn out to ACTUALLY be a turd on a stick! I actually like Vista for the most part, and if they took it and fixed the couple of complaints I have (why in the BLUE HELL is copying and deleting files so f'ing slow?!?) I'd be more than happy frankly with it being the next version of Windows. And I *definitely* couldn't care less what they call it in any case.
My answer to the question would be yes, tests are reasonable. But, I also think there's limits. At some point, doesn't a person have enough on their resume to warrant skipping the test?
I mean, take me as an example... I have four books published, a couple of articles out on the web, contributions to a good number of open-source projects... at some point, shouldn't I have special dispensation from having to take a test? And that doesn't even mention the numerous certifications I have and nearly 15 years of experience in the industry.
I understand that many people lie, and you can't trust a resume as far as you can shove it up your nose... but if you come across someone like me, who you can go out on the web and very quickly validate my credentials, isn't there a point where a test is... err... pointless?!?
I currently pay $49.99 a month for my broadband access, access I'm actually quite happy with. I don't download illegal music, software or anything like that.
BUT...
If my bill went to $79.99, or $89.99 or even $99.99 (but probably not more than that), and in exchange I could download whatever I wanted, any song, any movie, any sofware, with no risk of prosecution at any point in time......you know what? Sign me up today, no question about it.
The chances of that happening are of course somwhere between George Bush comprehending differential equations and Stephen Hawking winning an NBA slam-dunk contest, but be that as it may, I'd go for it as a consumer.
It'd be nice if that money was fairly distributed to all artists, software manufacturers and the like, but of course it wouldn't be, we'd simply have some very rich people at the MPAA, RIAA, BSA and so on. Being as I'm a former musician and a software maker myself I certainly care about that. But if we could just be fair and work that out, it'd be great.
Ok, thank you for listening. I need to go take a nother hit from my bong obviously.
I have two fully-working Commodore 64's, one of which is now a plaything for my 7-year old son and has been for a few weeks. This includes an original Commodore monitor and 1541 floppy drive. I also have a working plus4 in the closet, and if that wasn't enough, a working PET in the basement. By my count, that's roughly 25 years old.
In fact, I have quite a batch of older consumer electornics that all work perfectly:
* A 2XL * A Timex Sinclair 1000 * An Atari 800XL with tap drive
I should point out, all of these were original purchases by me (or more precisely, my parents in most cases).
Still, on balance, I go with any Commodore computer technology as toughest. You could fling one into the Sun and it'd come back with little more than a nice tan:)
If this gets rid of those God-awful ads on XM that annoy the shit out of me all the time, then I'm all for it. Then again, I'd *MUCH* rather it be AppRiver they were going after... my commute to and from work each day would be SO much better without those abortions!
"AppRiver...apply directly to your eMail! AppRiver... apply DIRECTLY to your eMail! AppRiver... apply directly to YOUR eMail!"
I've got a baseball bat I want to apply to someone's fucking head!
(first person that points out the obvious, that I can just change the station, can line up behind that announcer to meet my Louisville Slugger!)
"But given a time-span long enough, Linux is bound to be a major player on the desktop (possibly even the dominant player)."
I see versions of this same sentiment echoed all over the place... I'm really curious to know, why do you believe this is the case? You're essentially say Linux is DESTINED to be, if the the dominant desktop environment, than certainly one of the largest. Why? What evidence is there to support this?
To someone that frankly isn't enamored with Linux, this sounds like a variation of manifest destiny to me, which most people agree is a silly assertion for any nation to make. Why is the case different with Linux?
(I'm really not trying to be flamebait, it's legitimately interesting why this feeling, in one form or another, seems to be widely-held... hell, if I'm really missing the boat that badly I want to jump on board before it's too late!)
No, *YOU* missed the point: it doesn't do what it's supposed to well.
* The screen resolution issue is unforgivable, period. That's the kind of crap Linux *cannot* afford if it's ever to maek serious headway in the desktop market. Say what you will about Windows, virtually any version, but when you buy a PC with it preinstalled, it will generally always work out-of-the-box, all other criticisms aside, and this resolution problems is just something that plain doesn't work.
* The very slow loading of Firefox is unforgivable. This is partly Firefox' fault, even on my Core2Duo with 3G of RAM it takes probably 10 seconds or so to load up (granted, got a bunch of plugins installed, but still). What the reviewer described, Firefox itself aside, shouldn't happen.
* It doesn't ship (or at least make very easy to install) Flash, which, for better or worse, makes web surfing these days a very limited experience.
* The whole modem with no driver thing is also unforgivable. Even though I'd agree that a modem in a new PC these days is all but worthless for most people, you simply can't ship a PC with hardware that is unsupported out-of-the-box. Come on, if Dell did that everyone would be bashing them to no end.
No, in the end, based on what this reviewer says he saw (and I suppose he could be lying, but I don't believe that), this thing doesn't do properly what you claim it's meant to do, doesn't work in the way it's intended to be used by your estimation, and therefore it's a failure and deserves the review it got.
Now, all of these things can be addressed, so it'll be interesting to see how the next revision of it does... boost the speed a little bit without raising the price, fix all these things that the reviewer mentioned, spit and polish a bit, and maybe then it'll be worth something, but as of right now, nope, sorry, it didn't work.
Oh yeah, and FYI, remember the "time-loop" device wasn't meant to loop at all, that was just the side-effect of some bad engineering.
Splitting hairs I suppose... if one can build a device to go back in time at all it's probably a little over-the-top to criticize if it doesn't work *quite* right!
Hmm... did McKay ever actually use a time dilation field? SG1 did on the replicator planet when the first human-forms were introduced, thanks to the Asgard... and then Carter did it again in the final episode of the series (time dilation field, blew up a star, tell me she's not the most dangerous woman in the history of sci-fi!), but I don't recall McKay ever doing one (doing one? initiating one? setting one off? How exactly *does* one state it when someone is responsible for a time dilation field??)
I've recently been watching the DVDs of V with my 7-year old son... you remember, the sci-fi television miniseries from the early 80's. I've been teaching him about Hitler, WW2 and all that stuff from it because I think that's important stuff to know about, and he's genuinely interested in both the entertainment of the movie and the historical perspective.
But it occurs to me that this movie might very well foretell what's going to come in the frighteningly not too-distant future. I suggest anyone concerned with where the U.S. government has been going lately buy these DVDs and watch it again. Forget we're talking about aliens and eating people and all that and instead just think about the parallels between the story told and what we're seeing today. It's incredibly depressing to say the very least.
I hope my son learns from it and recognizes the signs... I hope he gets the message that to be brave in the face of opression and to fight those trying to destroy our way of life have to be fought at all costs. I hope he gets that to let it happen and not speak up, not take up arms if it comes to that, is tantamount to OK'ing it. He'll certainly see me fight, and die if necessary, if that what it takes to defend him and my family. I hope he gets that no matter how bleak the situation you always have to believe there's hope.
I hope he continues to enjoy the movie too (we're about half-way through), it's entertainment after all, but it's entertainment with an increasingly important message given the events in the modern day, and I hope that's not all lost on him.
I have Comcast, have had them for some time. As a matter of fact, I've had ONLY cable internet and basic cable for a couple of years, I'm not one of the people that gets everything through them, so I would assume I don't rate as highly as others do to them.
I've got *plenty* of speed. I've had a *total* of maybe four hours of down time over the last year or more. I've had to deal with customer service four or five times in that timeframe and each time I received good service. To summarize: I'm quite happy.
Now, it's not perfect: I've never been able to run a web server (can't access it from anywhere but my house), and the Bittorent thing lately bugs me (although I'm an infrequent BT user, usually just to grab The IT Crowd episodes or the odd Linux distro), so that doesn't affect me a whole lot. The price could be a little better, but it's not awful. And while the speed is good, it could always be better (to be fair though, I've seen significant increases in speed over the past two years at no extra cost to me, both up and down speeds). And those hidden caps, while I've never been affected (and I have often downloaded what anyone would consider a lot some months) bug me that they even exist (that's probably my only big complaint with Comcast: just tell me what the magic number is, even though "unlimited" should mean *unlimited*, at least if you make the number public I can live with it, assuming it's high enough).
I don't know, I'm certainly what most would consider a power user, and I have no major complaints. By contrast, Verizon are a bunch of bitches AFAIC... they're selling something that is borderline bogus anyway (so what if I have fiber to my house... what difference does that make when I'm hitting bottlenecks after I get past their gateway anyway?), they make a mess of neighborhoods (have you actually seen the aftermath of a Verizon fiber run? *NOT* pretty) I just don't know what all the Comcast hate is all about. They may not be Mother Teresa, maybe not be perfection incarnate, but what's the big problem exactly, and where's the *clearly* better alternative?
I feel this way about Ned and Chuck on Pushing Daisies... I think most people consider Romeo and Juliet to be the gold standard in tragic romances, but I think Ned and Chuck displace them at the top of the list. How in the BLUE HELL can you not watch that and just be so profoundly sad for them? Put yourself in their place and try not to be sad. Fry and Leela are similar, although separate for different reasons (Leela's an ass).
You have entirely the wrong mindset by just asking these questions. Open-source is actually very simple:
1. Does the code you wrote server a useful purpose for YOU? Is it something that solved a particular use case FOR YOU? 2. If yes, then release it. Period, end of story.
I used to be concerned with how my code looked to others, of trying to come up with the "next great OSS project" that everyone would get onboard with. Then I realized how wrong all that was.
Write code that YOU want to write (that's called "scratching your own itch"). Put it out there for others to use, as-is or by taking it and making it their own my modifying it. If you're releasing code for ego, or to make a name for yourself, that's the wrong answer right off the bat and it's likely you'll never succeed. at doing either.
That's not to say that if you have an idea that you think is a good one, even if it's something you don't really need yourself, that you shouldn't do it. On the contrary, altruism is a fine motivation, if you think the idea will help others, then by all means have at it. It's better if it's code you yourself intend to use, but that's not a requirement.
Like I said, it's simple: if the code is useful to you (or you believe it will be useful to others), then release it, and that's that. Don't worry about anything else, you've already succeeded if you do just this. Someone will always bash your code, someone will always think they know better, but that's not your problem because if they actually DO know better, they can take your code, fork it and re-mold it in their image. That's the whole point of OSS, and if you don't get that you shouldn't be releasing anything at all. It shouldn't be about ego, even though it always is a little bit whether people want to admit it or not (the trick is making sure that's a secondary or even tertiary concern, just a very minor part of it).
* Impossible Mission Arguably the best C64 game ever. Anyone who ever completed it knows what I mean.
* Pole Position More or less defined the driving genre... oh yes, there were driving games before, and plenty after, but this was probably the first that made any impact.
* Karate Champ I don't recall a one-on-one fighter that came before this. Certainly none that had as much impact.
* Donkey Kong Geez, need I say more?
* Frogger Another no-brainer.
* Tron There's been lots of movie tie-in games, but few that were any good. This one certainly was (and no, I don't mean the modern Tron 2.0 FPS, which ain't bad either, but it nothing special)
* Vanguard Side-scrolling shooter to end all side-scrolling shooters.
* Pac Man I know, they had one variation of it, but not the original?!?
* Galaga I think it's safe to call this a genre-defining game.
* Punch-Out You owe all modern boxing games to this one.
* Crossbow We call it Silent Scope nowadays, but this started the "gunner"-type games.
* Pepper 2 Cult classics from the Colecovision days.
* Q-Bert Again, this is one that just seems totally obvious to me.
* Ultima IV You may argue about which Ultima game is truly the best ever, my vote goes to IV (with III a close second), but the point is how can you not have at least one of them on the list?
* Archon Chess... err, sort of.
* Beach Head Now we have a VR version of it with a 360-degree headset to get you immersed.... and you know what??? NOT AS GOOD!
* Journey To The Planets This proved that you don't need anything remotely good-looking on the screen for a puzzler to be great.
* Bard's Tale I'm talking the original 8-bit here.
* Missile Command Pretty clearly the first of its kind.
* Defender Another total original at the time. Come on, how many quarters did you burn on that thing?
* Earth Defense Force 2017 A modern game for ya... I put this here because it's the most fun you'll have mindlessly blowing aliens away on any current system. No, it's not especially challenging (some later stages are extremely frustrating, even on normal though), but that's part of the pleasure... big, bad alien bugs, lots of firepower at your disposal, relatively easy destruction. And they actually got the scale right, which is a trick many games screw up royally... big mother ships actually look big.
* Postal 2 Another relatively modern game... I don't know, there's just something about that game that's special... the dark humor absolutely, and actually, maybe that's really it... the violence is of course way over the top as compared to most other games, but it's the less violent stuff that really works (Gary Coleman, the weiner dude, the Dude's comments throughout, etc).
Some notable mentions (without explanations... you either know them or you don't): Realm Of Impossibility, Forbidden Forest, Spelunker, Alternate Reality, Pick Axe Pete, Miner 2049'er, Pepper 2, Gorf, Test Drive.
That list was obviously written by people who never played, or have no appreciation for, the classics. They have no understanding of what they meant, not just personally to many of us, but in defining the industry and genres we have today. Look, I'm not one of those people who think modern games suck and that only classics are any good, although I do happen to think there were more good games "back in the day" than there are today, the fact is we have some phenomenally great games today too, and many of them were on the list. I don't really have any problem with any particular game they chose to put on the list, but I do think they left of some incredibly good and important games, and that makes the list not worth a whole lot in my eyes. If you don't consider the *entire* history of gaming, then you can't say the list is the most important games ever, nor can you necessarily say they are the best games ever because you're only considering one small segment, namely modern games.
Absolutely couldn't agree more. I'm in a very similar place you are... I'm 34 now, started with the company when I was 23 (10 years with the same company, but the small company I started with has been acquired twice, now I work for a large company, so it's almost like three different companies in 10 years). I've moved through the ranks, but not as far as some others. That used to bug me, but then I realized, those that passed me (most of which clearly are not superior to me in skill or knowledge and definitely not experience) work insane hours, while I don't. That's cool with me!
I have a house, a wife and two kids, so if the trade-off is time with them versus maybe being the head guy at work that never sees them, that's no choice at all as far as I'm concerned. I'll take the former without a moment's hesitation.
Now, would I have this opinion if I was unmarried and 23 again? You know, maybe not. I think then I would be willing to put in the crazy hours and to really move up the ladder where I arguably should be. But that's not the reality, and the reality is something I'm more than happy with.
This also leaves me a lot of time to work on open-source endeavors, which I get tremendous enjoyment from. I couldn't do that putting in 70-hours work weeks. I like the fact that not all my time, effort, energy and creativity goes to my employer. I'm thankful for the job I have, but I don't owe all of myself to it.
Speaking as someone who runs a couple of open-source projects (Java Web Parts - javawebparts.sourceforge.net, DataVision - datavision.sourceforge.net, as well as some smaller ones), and as someone who has contributed to a number of open-source projects, my advice is simply to get out there do do something.
Submitting patches is indeed the first usual step. The existing team members need to see (and have a responsible to see) that you know what your doing. This means different things to different people, but at a minimum it means that you have enough competency to not break anything. Being on the mailing list is indeed the other logical first step. Don't be afraid to jump in to conversations (once you have a clue), just do so politely and which as much forethought as you can muster. If anyone involved in the project attacks you if you've done both of those things, than you don't want to be involved with that project anyway.
Something else that a lot of people don't consider is you don't necessarily have to be directly involved with the project. In fact, that's how the most popular component in Java Web Parts (AjaxParts Taglib) came into existence: it was originally an extended Struts HTML taglib, but the Struts team didn't have any interest in it. So, originally I release it as part of the Struts SourceForge project, and then later spun it off into its own thing (completely independant of Struts now). So, don't be afraid to fork code, or start your own project on SourceForge or Google Code or somewhere like that.
The other key point to remember is that any open-source work you do should be for YOU first and foremost. Don't just do something for the sake of being involved, do it because it interests you, because it "scratches an itch" for you. If something if useful to you, it tends to be useful to others.
At the end of the day though, don't be shy! Ask questions, submit patches, take some baby steps and get your feet wet. Yes, there's a lot to learn, and yes it can seem overwhelming at first, but I guarantee you'll pick things up pretty quickly once you get into it. The two projects I mentioned are always accepting contributions, so feel free to stop by, join the mailing lists and get rolling!
You lost me at "As the senior IS manager for my company with duties running from web development to full network administration"... any MANAGER doing all these duties is either (a) a shitty-ass manager who can't maintain staff longer than the time it takes to piss them off each day, or (b) a shitty-ass developer/admin who smarter people than you pushed into management with the hopes that you'd never again develop software or administer a network (they failed).
Either way, your an asshat.
That aside though, because I've got a brief spot of downtime in my workload, I'll even answer your points more legitimately (even though I've already summed it all up perfectly well)... and before I do, I'll tell you I basically like Windows, XP anyway, and am not a huge fan of Linux (never seems to work right for me no matter how much time and energy I put into it)...
1. I agree, I've had virtually no trouble with XP for a few yeas now. I can't even remember the last time I saw a BSOD, or any crash I couldn't directly attribute to a single application. I also agree that if you maintain your machine with any semblance of brains, this stability will likely continue indefinitely. I further agree that in my experience, I've had just as much trouble in terms of stability with various Linux distros than I've had with Windows, in fact more so.
2. Declaring that *nix "geeks" are the virus writters on Windows is pretty stupid. In fact, knowing some people as I do, I'd go so far as to say that very few malware writers are doing so to make Windows look bad and *nix look good. VERY few.
3. Not to be a defender of Mac's, because I don't honestly have a ton of experience with them, but... "If I go Mac I cut down my productivity by at least 1/2 in a business environment..." Why? Most business users have frankly very limited, well-defined needs which can be met perfectly well on a Mac. OpenOffice will take care of most of it actually. Add Firefox/Thunderbird and a few other solid pieces of software and 99% of what they need is covered. "...it would sit like a cold stone, never on, at home because there isn't shit for software for it when compared to PCs..."... Well, again, most typical home users would find 99% of what they need available on a MAC, unless your referring to games, which is the only place your comments stand.
4. "If I go *nix in any flavor it gets even worse. Unreliable and disparate code bases open in the wild for all to see and modify..."... err, that's kind of the whole point. Your right, there are some terrible open-source code bases out there, but for all the troubles I've personally had with Linux, that's not one of the poor code bases. Neither are the major open-source projects like OpenOffice, Firefos, GIMP, etc. These are fantastically good projects with solid code bases, there's just no denying that.
5. "...limited choices for software in any class or type..."... Just just absolutely false. There is a plethora of choice in virtually any category you can name. Oh, I'll grant you a lot of it isn't very good, but that's true of Windows too. I absolutey defy you to name more than one category or need that you can't find a suitable open-source app for. You *may* come up with one, even that's hard to believe, but not two or more, I guarantee that.
6. "...hardware limitations..."... Haven't been keeping up with the state of Vista, have you? I've had as much trouble as anyone with Linux hardware support (why the hell can't I, even with Fedora Core 7, get my Altansic L1 NIC to work?!?), but Vista is almost as bad. Anything before Vista has had a lot of years to develop, so it's not a completely fair comparison.
7. "Interoperability withe the bulk of the PC centric business world is low on the user end to boot."... Really? I deal with people all the time who are 100% Linux-based and I can't remember the last time they couldn't
Slashdot Mirror
I have zero problem with this idea, being a huge GH and RB fan. But, ARCADES?? Do they even still exist?
I'm in my mid-30's, and I grew up in arcades... some of my favorites memories involve arcades. In fact, in my early 20's I was an arcade machine service tech, so I have a lot of experience in arcades.
But, my kids barely know what an arcade is, and they certainly aren't begging me to take them to any. I can't imagine they are much different than most kids today who have all the games at home.
"Black holes do have a solid foundation in theory, and we can observe the gravitational effects they have on their neighbours"
No, to be pedantic and at the same time accurate: we can observe the gravitational effects (OF SOME OBJECT THAT MATCHES WHAT THE MATH SAYS A BLACK WHOLE WOULD BE LIKE) they have on their neighbours.
Black holes are still 100% theoretical, no one can say definitively they exist. It could be that there is some other physical construct that exhibits the same behavior as a black hole.
Now, don't get me wrong: I'm with the rest of the crowd, there's enough empirical evidence to say that black holes are pretty well a fact of life. I have no doubt whatsoever they exist. But we shouldn't ever lose sight of that fact that until we have direct, irrefutable evidence, they are stil only theoretical consequences of mathematics. True, that's been good enough in the past, and probably is here too.
I couldn't care less what they call it... if it works well, and I like using it, they can call it "turd on a stick" for all I care... my fear is that it'll turn out to ACTUALLY be a turd on a stick! I actually like Vista for the most part, and if they took it and fixed the couple of complaints I have (why in the BLUE HELL is copying and deleting files so f'ing slow?!?) I'd be more than happy frankly with it being the next version of Windows. And I *definitely* couldn't care less what they call it in any case.
My answer to the question would be yes, tests are reasonable. But, I also think there's limits. At some point, doesn't a person have enough on their resume to warrant skipping the test?
I mean, take me as an example... I have four books published, a couple of articles out on the web, contributions to a good number of open-source projects... at some point, shouldn't I have special dispensation from having to take a test? And that doesn't even mention the numerous certifications I have and nearly 15 years of experience in the industry.
I understand that many people lie, and you can't trust a resume as far as you can shove it up your nose... but if you come across someone like me, who you can go out on the web and very quickly validate my credentials, isn't there a point where a test is... err... pointless?!?
I currently pay $49.99 a month for my broadband access, access I'm actually quite happy with. I don't download illegal music, software or anything like that.
...you know what? Sign me up today, no question about it.
BUT...
If my bill went to $79.99, or $89.99 or even $99.99 (but probably not more than that), and in exchange I could download whatever I wanted, any song, any movie, any sofware, with no risk of prosecution at any point in time...
The chances of that happening are of course somwhere between George Bush comprehending differential equations and Stephen Hawking winning an NBA slam-dunk contest, but be that as it may, I'd go for it as a consumer.
It'd be nice if that money was fairly distributed to all artists, software manufacturers and the like, but of course it wouldn't be, we'd simply have some very rich people at the MPAA, RIAA, BSA and so on. Being as I'm a former musician and a software maker myself I certainly care about that. But if we could just be fair and work that out, it'd be great.
Ok, thank you for listening. I need to go take a nother hit from my bong obviously.
I have two fully-working Commodore 64's, one of which is now a plaything for my 7-year old son and has been for a few weeks. This includes an original Commodore monitor and 1541 floppy drive. I also have a working plus4 in the closet, and if that wasn't enough, a working PET in the basement. By my count, that's roughly 25 years old.
:)
In fact, I have quite a batch of older consumer electornics that all work perfectly:
* A 2XL
* A Timex Sinclair 1000
* An Atari 800XL with tap drive
I should point out, all of these were original purchases by me (or more precisely, my parents in most cases).
Still, on balance, I go with any Commodore computer technology as toughest. You could fling one into the Sun and it'd come back with little more than a nice tan
If this gets rid of those God-awful ads on XM that annoy the shit out of me all the time, then I'm all for it. Then again, I'd *MUCH* rather it be AppRiver they were going after... my commute to and from work each day would be SO much better without those abortions!
"AppRiver...apply directly to your eMail! AppRiver... apply DIRECTLY to your eMail! AppRiver... apply directly to YOUR eMail!"
I've got a baseball bat I want to apply to someone's fucking head!
(first person that points out the obvious, that I can just change the station, can line up behind that announcer to meet my Louisville Slugger!)
...sounds like a girl I dated in high school.
Ugh, some memories SHOULD be repressed.
"But given a time-span long enough, Linux is bound to be a major player on the desktop (possibly even the dominant player)."
I see versions of this same sentiment echoed all over the place... I'm really curious to know, why do you believe this is the case? You're essentially say Linux is DESTINED to be, if the the dominant desktop environment, than certainly one of the largest. Why? What evidence is there to support this?
To someone that frankly isn't enamored with Linux, this sounds like a variation of manifest destiny to me, which most people agree is a silly assertion for any nation to make. Why is the case different with Linux?
(I'm really not trying to be flamebait, it's legitimately interesting why this feeling, in one form or another, seems to be widely-held... hell, if I'm really missing the boat that badly I want to jump on board before it's too late!)
No, *YOU* missed the point: it doesn't do what it's supposed to well.
* The screen resolution issue is unforgivable, period. That's the kind of crap Linux *cannot* afford if it's ever to maek serious headway in the desktop market. Say what you will about Windows, virtually any version, but when you buy a PC with it preinstalled, it will generally always work out-of-the-box, all other criticisms aside, and this resolution problems is just something that plain doesn't work.
* The very slow loading of Firefox is unforgivable. This is partly Firefox' fault, even on my Core2Duo with 3G of RAM it takes probably 10 seconds or so to load up (granted, got a bunch of plugins installed, but still). What the reviewer described, Firefox itself aside, shouldn't happen.
* It doesn't ship (or at least make very easy to install) Flash, which, for better or worse, makes web surfing these days a very limited experience.
* The whole modem with no driver thing is also unforgivable. Even though I'd agree that a modem in a new PC these days is all but worthless for most people, you simply can't ship a PC with hardware that is unsupported out-of-the-box. Come on, if Dell did that everyone would be bashing them to no end.
No, in the end, based on what this reviewer says he saw (and I suppose he could be lying, but I don't believe that), this thing doesn't do properly what you claim it's meant to do, doesn't work in the way it's intended to be used by your estimation, and therefore it's a failure and deserves the review it got.
Now, all of these things can be addressed, so it'll be interesting to see how the next revision of it does... boost the speed a little bit without raising the price, fix all these things that the reviewer mentioned, spit and polish a bit, and maybe then it'll be worth something, but as of right now, nope, sorry, it didn't work.
Oh yeah, and FYI, remember the "time-loop" device wasn't meant to loop at all, that was just the side-effect of some bad engineering.
Splitting hairs I suppose... if one can build a device to go back in time at all it's probably a little over-the-top to criticize if it doesn't work *quite* right!
"IN THE MIDDLE OF MY BACKSWING?!!?"
Hmm... did McKay ever actually use a time dilation field? SG1 did on the replicator planet when the first human-forms were introduced, thanks to the Asgard... and then Carter did it again in the final episode of the series (time dilation field, blew up a star, tell me she's not the most dangerous woman in the history of sci-fi!), but I don't recall McKay ever doing one (doing one? initiating one? setting one off? How exactly *does* one state it when someone is responsible for a time dilation field??)
I've recently been watching the DVDs of V with my 7-year old son... you remember, the sci-fi television miniseries from the early 80's. I've been teaching him about Hitler, WW2 and all that stuff from it because I think that's important stuff to know about, and he's genuinely interested in both the entertainment of the movie and the historical perspective.
But it occurs to me that this movie might very well foretell what's going to come in the frighteningly not too-distant future. I suggest anyone concerned with where the U.S. government has been going lately buy these DVDs and watch it again. Forget we're talking about aliens and eating people and all that and instead just think about the parallels between the story told and what we're seeing today. It's incredibly depressing to say the very least.
I hope my son learns from it and recognizes the signs... I hope he gets the message that to be brave in the face of opression and to fight those trying to destroy our way of life have to be fought at all costs. I hope he gets that to let it happen and not speak up, not take up arms if it comes to that, is tantamount to OK'ing it. He'll certainly see me fight, and die if necessary, if that what it takes to defend him and my family. I hope he gets that no matter how bleak the situation you always have to believe there's hope.
I hope he continues to enjoy the movie too (we're about half-way through), it's entertainment after all, but it's entertainment with an increasingly important message given the events in the modern day, and I hope that's not all lost on him.
I have Comcast, have had them for some time. As a matter of fact, I've had ONLY cable internet and basic cable for a couple of years, I'm not one of the people that gets everything through them, so I would assume I don't rate as highly as others do to them.
I've got *plenty* of speed. I've had a *total* of maybe four hours of down time over the last year or more. I've had to deal with customer service four or five times in that timeframe and each time I received good service. To summarize: I'm quite happy.
Now, it's not perfect: I've never been able to run a web server (can't access it from anywhere but my house), and the Bittorent thing lately bugs me (although I'm an infrequent BT user, usually just to grab The IT Crowd episodes or the odd Linux distro), so that doesn't affect me a whole lot. The price could be a little better, but it's not awful. And while the speed is good, it could always be better (to be fair though, I've seen significant increases in speed over the past two years at no extra cost to me, both up and down speeds). And those hidden caps, while I've never been affected (and I have often downloaded what anyone would consider a lot some months) bug me that they even exist (that's probably my only big complaint with Comcast: just tell me what the magic number is, even though "unlimited" should mean *unlimited*, at least if you make the number public I can live with it, assuming it's high enough).
I don't know, I'm certainly what most would consider a power user, and I have no major complaints. By contrast, Verizon are a bunch of bitches AFAIC... they're selling something that is borderline bogus anyway (so what if I have fiber to my house... what difference does that make when I'm hitting bottlenecks after I get past their gateway anyway?), they make a mess of neighborhoods (have you actually seen the aftermath of a Verizon fiber run? *NOT* pretty) I just don't know what all the Comcast hate is all about. They may not be Mother Teresa, maybe not be perfection incarnate, but what's the big problem exactly, and where's the *clearly* better alternative?
I feel this way about Ned and Chuck on Pushing Daisies... I think most people consider Romeo and Juliet to be the gold standard in tragic romances, but I think Ned and Chuck displace them at the top of the list. How in the BLUE HELL can you not watch that and just be so profoundly sad for them? Put yourself in their place and try not to be sad. Fry and Leela are similar, although separate for different reasons (Leela's an ass).
I for one welcome our new zombified vermin overlords.
One of this generation's greatest thinkers, the comedian Gallagher, I think said it best:
"There's a reason 'Congress' begins with the word 'con'. 'Con' is the oppsosite of 'pro', so 'Congress' must be the opposite of 'progress'."
My friends, wiser words have never been spoken.
You have entirely the wrong mindset by just asking these questions. Open-source is actually very simple:
1. Does the code you wrote server a useful purpose for YOU? Is it something that solved a particular use case FOR YOU?
2. If yes, then release it. Period, end of story.
I used to be concerned with how my code looked to others, of trying to come up with the "next great OSS project" that everyone would get onboard with. Then I realized how wrong all that was.
Write code that YOU want to write (that's called "scratching your own itch"). Put it out there for others to use, as-is or by taking it and making it their own my modifying it. If you're releasing code for ego, or to make a name for yourself, that's the wrong answer right off the bat and it's likely you'll never succeed. at doing either.
That's not to say that if you have an idea that you think is a good one, even if it's something you don't really need yourself, that you shouldn't do it. On the contrary, altruism is a fine motivation, if you think the idea will help others, then by all means have at it. It's better if it's code you yourself intend to use, but that's not a requirement.
Like I said, it's simple: if the code is useful to you (or you believe it will be useful to others), then release it, and that's that. Don't worry about anything else, you've already succeeded if you do just this. Someone will always bash your code, someone will always think they know better, but that's not your problem because if they actually DO know better, they can take your code, fork it and re-mold it in their image. That's the whole point of OSS, and if you don't get that you shouldn't be releasing anything at all. It shouldn't be about ego, even though it always is a little bit whether people want to admit it or not (the trick is making sure that's a secondary or even tertiary concern, just a very minor part of it).
Hey, get the hell away from my car!!
* Impossible Mission
Arguably the best C64 game ever. Anyone who ever completed it knows what I mean.
* Pole Position
More or less defined the driving genre... oh yes, there were driving games before, and plenty after, but this was probably the first that made any impact.
* Karate Champ
I don't recall a one-on-one fighter that came before this. Certainly none that had as much impact.
* Donkey Kong
Geez, need I say more?
* Frogger
Another no-brainer.
* Tron
There's been lots of movie tie-in games, but few that were any good. This one certainly was (and no, I don't mean the modern Tron 2.0 FPS, which ain't bad either, but it nothing special)
* Vanguard
Side-scrolling shooter to end all side-scrolling shooters.
* Pac Man
I know, they had one variation of it, but not the original?!?
* Galaga
I think it's safe to call this a genre-defining game.
* Punch-Out
You owe all modern boxing games to this one.
* Crossbow
We call it Silent Scope nowadays, but this started the "gunner"-type games.
* Pepper 2
Cult classics from the Colecovision days.
* Q-Bert
Again, this is one that just seems totally obvious to me.
* Ultima IV
You may argue about which Ultima game is truly the best ever, my vote goes to IV (with III a close second), but the point is how can you not have at least one of them on the list?
* Archon
Chess... err, sort of.
* Beach Head
Now we have a VR version of it with a 360-degree headset to get you immersed.... and you know what??? NOT AS GOOD!
* Journey To The Planets
This proved that you don't need anything remotely good-looking on the screen for a puzzler to be great.
* Bard's Tale
I'm talking the original 8-bit here.
* Missile Command
Pretty clearly the first of its kind.
* Defender
Another total original at the time. Come on, how many quarters did you burn on that thing?
* Earth Defense Force 2017
A modern game for ya... I put this here because it's the most fun you'll have mindlessly blowing aliens away on any current system. No, it's not especially challenging (some later stages are extremely frustrating, even on normal though), but that's part of the pleasure... big, bad alien bugs, lots of firepower at your disposal, relatively easy destruction. And they actually got the scale right, which is a trick many games screw up royally... big mother ships actually look big.
* Postal 2
Another relatively modern game... I don't know, there's just something about that game that's special... the dark humor absolutely, and actually, maybe that's really it... the violence is of course way over the top as compared to most other games, but it's the less violent stuff that really works (Gary Coleman, the weiner dude, the Dude's comments throughout, etc).
Some notable mentions (without explanations... you either know them or you don't): Realm Of Impossibility, Forbidden Forest, Spelunker, Alternate Reality, Pick Axe Pete, Miner 2049'er, Pepper 2, Gorf, Test Drive.
That list was obviously written by people who never played, or have no appreciation for, the classics. They have no understanding of what they meant, not just personally to many of us, but in defining the industry and genres we have today. Look, I'm not one of those people who think modern games suck and that only classics are any good, although I do happen to think there were more good games "back in the day" than there are today, the fact is we have some phenomenally great games today too, and many of them were on the list. I don't really have any problem with any particular game they chose to put on the list, but I do think they left of some incredibly good and important games, and that makes the list not worth a whole lot in my eyes. If you don't consider the *entire* history of gaming, then you can't say the list is the most important games ever, nor can you necessarily say they are the best games ever because you're only considering one small segment, namely modern games.
...after Kevin Smith convinced me that Prince is a douche, I have to now go and side with the asshat (Prince, not Kev)?
Argh. Irony is... err... ironic.
Absolutely couldn't agree more. I'm in a very similar place you are... I'm 34 now, started with the company when I was 23 (10 years with the same company, but the small company I started with has been acquired twice, now I work for a large company, so it's almost like three different companies in 10 years). I've moved through the ranks, but not as far as some others. That used to bug me, but then I realized, those that passed me (most of which clearly are not superior to me in skill or knowledge and definitely not experience) work insane hours, while I don't. That's cool with me!
I have a house, a wife and two kids, so if the trade-off is time with them versus maybe being the head guy at work that never sees them, that's no choice at all as far as I'm concerned. I'll take the former without a moment's hesitation.
Now, would I have this opinion if I was unmarried and 23 again? You know, maybe not. I think then I would be willing to put in the crazy hours and to really move up the ladder where I arguably should be. But that's not the reality, and the reality is something I'm more than happy with.
This also leaves me a lot of time to work on open-source endeavors, which I get tremendous enjoyment from. I couldn't do that putting in 70-hours work weeks. I like the fact that not all my time, effort, energy and creativity goes to my employer. I'm thankful for the job I have, but I don't owe all of myself to it.
Speaking as someone who runs a couple of open-source projects (Java Web Parts - javawebparts.sourceforge.net, DataVision - datavision.sourceforge.net, as well as some smaller ones), and as someone who has contributed to a number of open-source projects, my advice is simply to get out there do do something.
Submitting patches is indeed the first usual step. The existing team members need to see (and have a responsible to see) that you know what your doing. This means different things to different people, but at a minimum it means that you have enough competency to not break anything. Being on the mailing list is indeed the other logical first step. Don't be afraid to jump in to conversations (once you have a clue), just do so politely and which as much forethought as you can muster. If anyone involved in the project attacks you if you've done both of those things, than you don't want to be involved with that project anyway.
Something else that a lot of people don't consider is you don't necessarily have to be directly involved with the project. In fact, that's how the most popular component in Java Web Parts (AjaxParts Taglib) came into existence: it was originally an extended Struts HTML taglib, but the Struts team didn't have any interest in it. So, originally I release it as part of the Struts SourceForge project, and then later spun it off into its own thing (completely independant of Struts now). So, don't be afraid to fork code, or start your own project on SourceForge or Google Code or somewhere like that.
The other key point to remember is that any open-source work you do should be for YOU first and foremost. Don't just do something for the sake of being involved, do it because it interests you, because it "scratches an itch" for you. If something if useful to you, it tends to be useful to others.
At the end of the day though, don't be shy! Ask questions, submit patches, take some baby steps and get your feet wet. Yes, there's a lot to learn, and yes it can seem overwhelming at first, but I guarantee you'll pick things up pretty quickly once you get into it. The two projects I mentioned are always accepting contributions, so feel free to stop by, join the mailing lists and get rolling!
You lost me at "As the senior IS manager for my company with duties running from web development to full network administration" ... any MANAGER doing all these duties is either (a) a shitty-ass manager who can't maintain staff longer than the time it takes to piss them off each day, or (b) a shitty-ass developer/admin who smarter people than you pushed into management with the hopes that you'd never again develop software or administer a network (they failed).
... "If I go Mac I cut down my productivity by at least 1/2 in a business environment..." Why? Most business users have frankly very limited, well-defined needs which can be met perfectly well on a Mac. OpenOffice will take care of most of it actually. Add Firefox/Thunderbird and a few other solid pieces of software and 99% of what they need is covered. "...it would sit like a cold stone, never on, at home because there isn't shit for software for it when compared to PCs..." ... Well, again, most typical home users would find 99% of what they need available on a MAC, unless your referring to games, which is the only place your comments stand.
... err, that's kind of the whole point. Your right, there are some terrible open-source code bases out there, but for all the troubles I've personally had with Linux, that's not one of the poor code bases. Neither are the major open-source projects like OpenOffice, Firefos, GIMP, etc. These are fantastically good projects with solid code bases, there's just no denying that.
... Just just absolutely false. There is a plethora of choice in virtually any category you can name. Oh, I'll grant you a lot of it isn't very good, but that's true of Windows too. I absolutey defy you to name more than one category or need that you can't find a suitable open-source app for. You *may* come up with one, even that's hard to believe, but not two or more, I guarantee that.
... Haven't been keeping up with the state of Vista, have you? I've had as much trouble as anyone with Linux hardware support (why the hell can't I, even with Fedora Core 7, get my Altansic L1 NIC to work?!?), but Vista is almost as bad. Anything before Vista has had a lot of years to develop, so it's not a completely fair comparison.
... Really? I deal with people all the time who are 100% Linux-based and I can't remember the last time they couldn't
Either way, your an asshat.
That aside though, because I've got a brief spot of downtime in my workload, I'll even answer your points more legitimately (even though I've already summed it all up perfectly well)... and before I do, I'll tell you I basically like Windows, XP anyway, and am not a huge fan of Linux (never seems to work right for me no matter how much time and energy I put into it)...
1. I agree, I've had virtually no trouble with XP for a few yeas now. I can't even remember the last time I saw a BSOD, or any crash I couldn't directly attribute to a single application. I also agree that if you maintain your machine with any semblance of brains, this stability will likely continue indefinitely. I further agree that in my experience, I've had just as much trouble in terms of stability with various Linux distros than I've had with Windows, in fact more so.
2. Declaring that *nix "geeks" are the virus writters on Windows is pretty stupid. In fact, knowing some people as I do, I'd go so far as to say that very few malware writers are doing so to make Windows look bad and *nix look good. VERY few.
3. Not to be a defender of Mac's, because I don't honestly have a ton of experience with them, but
4. "If I go *nix in any flavor it gets even worse. Unreliable and disparate code bases open in the wild for all to see and modify..."
5. "...limited choices for software in any class or type..."
6. "...hardware limitations..."
7. "Interoperability withe the bulk of the PC centric business world is low on the user end to boot."
There was one recently: 23.
Err, wait...