Wow, they must have really, REALLY marked up since the last time I bought something from them. I bought four computers (486 class) complete with monitors for under $150 (including shipping). I wouldn't have suggested it if I knew they had marked things up that much since then.
This whole thing makes me feel like that "blank tape tax" that the RIAA had years ago wasn't quite so vile. If it ever hits the point where I have to pay a tax on downloads that I make available for free, well, I guess I can forget ever making any music that isn't RIAA approved. How about they come into my house and monitor me to make sure I don't "illegally" play my guitar?
I've purchased a number of used computers from Computer Strippers in the past and they have always had very reasonable prices. They also tend to have some really good prices on new machines.
I have a question. If we keep allowing the big media companies to make laws (OK, so this is a rule that isn't yet a law, but lets face it, with enough money you can push through any law you want) at what point do independent bands have to start paying a "you should use us" fee for publishing their music without using the traditional methods.
Example: I and my band record our music in my home studio. We then buy CDRs and a good quality CD printer (they aren't that expensive) for the labels on the CD and print out CD covers for the jewel case. We make our music available for download off the net, or available on CDR for a small fee (less than standard priced CDs). Now it would be unimaginable for the RIAA to come to us and say, "You have to pay us a fee because you aren't using us as a distribution method." But the way I see things going right now, I fear that it won't be long before this happens. Are people really going to let that happen? Or is my paranoia getting the best of me?
I really don't fully understand how the currently entrenched companies think that every new distribution method that comes up has to be under their control, but it seems that "the law" backs them up in this. Why? Why do the controllers of the current method of distribution have to have control of all future developments for distribution? As an independant musician, this sort of thing just scares the hell out of me.
Come on people, the RIAA didn't invent music, and they sure as hell didn't invent the ability to enjoy music. So why should they always be in control of all distrobution methods?
Sorry, but this angers and frightens me like you would not believe.
Every "new" technology is claimed to improve "the web experience" these days. The addition of the speech recognition is just because it was IBM they were talking about (they love speech recognition). Personally, I think anyone with a clue know that what's holding back the "web experience" is that we don't have fat enough pipes yet. I don't care if you buy the latest and greatest PIII (or I guess it's PIV now), if you stick a 56k modem in there (that can actually only connect at 23.5k) you are not going to massively increase the speed of downloads over that old Pentium 133 with the same modem.
Sorry, that's a little pet peeve of mine. Taking advantage of the computer clueless should be outlawed. But that would mean arresting every marketing idiot, er I mean genius, in the industry.
In the interim, exactly. You realize that the phone system, as it exists today, will eventually be as antiquated as the other methods of communication I mentioned. But the way they stated it, it was like there is no hope of ever having anything beyond the telephones and telephone system exactly as it exists today, we'll just keep adding numbers. Something about that doesn't strike me as right. We need to look into other options. But, I agree that in the interim we need to keep the phones running.
And let's not forget the driving force in everything in today's society. The status quo gathers more money for the businesses that already have the money. So don't expect the "next big thing" in voice communication to come from the already entrenched phone companies. But, that could just be my feeble mind jumping to conspiratorial conclusions.
Like I said, I'm not ready for video phones. Although, it would be a lot more fun calling up your girlfriend and trying to time it so that she had to run out of the shower;-). WEEEE!
but some say it's a stepping stone to the eventual 11 or 12 digit phone number of the future.
Because, let's remember folks that in the future, everything will be exactly the same as it is now. We will never move beyond the need for telephones, just like we never moved beyond the need for smoke signals and drums.
Sorry, but this just strikes me as wrong. Why aren't we looking into making voice over IP an option. Or maybe start working on something similar that is based on some form of Internet standard. I'm not really ready for videophones everywhere, but surely we can come up with something better than the current telephone. Can't we?
Your comment made me think of something I've been wondering about for a while.
I started using courier on my web site as it appears the best on most systems. However, there seem to be a huge number of people developing web sites that use fonts that are totally dependent on anti-aliasing to make them legible.
My question would be, once we get anti-aliasing in XFree, is that going to be one more contingent ready to throw in the towel on good web development? I mean, when high-speed access started to be available in a few cities it seems that many web sites when completely out of their way to destroy even the possibility of viewing the site with anything less then a DSL or cable modem line. Are we about to see the next phase of the "get rid of the 'non-standard' users" trend we've seen developing over the years?
The part that really kills me on that is that the "standard", taken purely by the numbers, would actually be a low speed internet access option, and probably someone that doesn't know how to turn on font smoothing (if it didn't come turned on from the manufacturer, which I have yet to see on IBM compatibles). So if you don't have the same set-up and web connection as the developer, you are considered to be "non-standard" which seems to equate more and more to "irrelevant".
Sorry for the rant, it's just one of those topics that no one seems interested in addressing.
Hey, I didn't mean to knock wrestling. I watch wrestling almost every night. They have the "fun" part of entertainment figured out. And I've purchased quite a few pay-per-view wrestling events. But, even as an avid fan, I have to say that "intelligence" is not one of the things that TV wrestling is about. That's one of the prime reasons I like it. It's nice to occassionally shut down your brain and just enjoy something that is purely "fun". The Olympics on the other hand, are not fun at all.
Actually the last Olympics was so completely corporatized that it was totally antithema to the idealism that was at one time what was considered the "Olympic Spirit".
From the "You can't get in wearing a non-sponsor T-shirt" corporate cops, er security gaurds at the gate, to the "you can't eat that sandwich because it violates McDonalds right to sell you an EggMcMuffin" garbage where they would actually take food from people and throw it away, to this pathetic "ten year ban", the entire concept of the Olympics is completely and totally based on corporate greed. I look for the next Olympics to be so corporate-controlled that there will be no one allowed in unless they are wearing "OFFICIAL" Olympic clothes, and if you aren't you will be forced to purchase them at the gate. And if you wish to watch the Olympics on TV, you will have to purchase the "Olympic" version of some cable converter. Frankly, I hope they do that. It will show them that people aren't "that" interested in the Olympics. It was cool a few years back. But most of us are not going to be willing to go the route of "pay-per-view" Olympics on TV. It just wouldn't be worth it.
How many people that watched the Olympics just because the shows they normally watch weren't on? I know quite a few that just watched nothing rather than watch the Olympics. It just wasn't "fun" this time around. Corporatized sports are about as much "fun" as the WWF and WCW wrestling are "intelligent". It just isn't made to be that way.
Speaking in terms of the revenue that can be generated from a free software project makes it quite evident that you do not understand the basic principles driving it. Where exactly did I say it had to be another Microsoft? Frankly, the entire Microsoft vs. non-Microsoft crap is just a bunch of gibberish that is thrown into any sort of software discussion simply because people are scared that it might be possible that Microsoft can be sidestepped by someone. The company I work for has sidestepped MS, and more are following.
It's not that I hate MS, it's that I hate the idea that you are either for or against them. We use the best tool for each job we do. If we ever see a need for an MS based solution, it certainly won't destroy me to use it. Forget the entire "We don't want another MS" rant and realize that another choice to free software is not going to be another MS. I didn't say anywhere that I didn't want something modular. I wouldn't use it if it wasn't package based, or in some way easily managed. And I don't even see the possibility of a free software distro coming out without some form of package management in this day and age.
Nothing personal against you, but it seems you failed to grasp what I was driving at.
Believe me, I do understand completely where you are coming from. I too have fought with Linux installers trying to get a "bare-minimum" system installed, and it is a huge pain.
The only thing I was trying to ask is, why not have something "other" possible. I realize that OpenBSD is a great and tight little system. But, unless you are already a Unix guru, or at least willing to learn Unix fairly well, you either:
A) Won't have much use for a "standard" full installed OpenBSD system.
or
B) Will not be able to get enough installed on top of the "standard" full install to make a nice, clean, and "easy-to-use" (by the normal "idiot-friendly" standards) system.
My question wasn't about changing the current OpenBSD, but about how Theo, and/or the other OpenBSD team members would feel about another group pushing the desktop/easy-to-use/idiot-friendly type of installer and desktop system. I don't have the energy to pursue it (especially alone), but someone out there might do it if the interest was there.
Seriously, who wouldn't love a OpenBSD system with KDE2 + Mozilla + OpenOffice with a full code audit done on every piece of software on the system for their desktop/laptop? I just wondered if the current OpenBSD team would support such an effort, or mock it because of the dumbing-down effect (or appearance, as the case may be).
The sad thing about Springer (vs the WWF, where you know it's fiction) is that the portrayal of the people is that "this is real life" (and I assume that for some people it is).
It's just very sad, whether the stories are true or not, that so many people want to go on it. What's even sadder is the number of people that want to watch.
As someone who has used (and still uses) OpenBSD from time to time I have been extremely impressed with the security and the fact that it installs a "minimal" system that you can later build up.
However, as a person that deals with new entries into the use of open-source/free software on a regular basis, I have often wondered about the possibility of an easy to use/install version of OpenBSD. I realize in the past that the OpenBSD team has sort of shrugged off the ease of use idea as un-important when compared to the security issues, and that is all well and good for the primary drive of OpenBSD. However, as a person that would like to see people become more security concious (or at least aware of security as an issue), and a person that would love to see common desktop systems become far more secure, I have often wondered about developing a solid desktop system on top of OpenBSD.
My question is not whether or not you and the OpenBSD team would themselves do this. I believe you have addressed this in the past (with a resounding "not now"). But, I would be interested in whether you would support an effort to do this sort of project or not. If a group were established with the sole purpose of developing a desktop distribution based on OpenBSD (and auditing every line of the desktop applications as well as your current teams does the base system), would you look at that as a positive for OpenBSD, or a negative? Would you be willing to commicate with the individuals that would be attempting this, and occassionally help them out with coding issues if they asked? Or would you at least voice support for an effort such as this? Or would you flat out seperate "real" OpenBSD from any attempt to make it more "user friendly"?
Wow, when I first read your comment I wanted to laugh. But suddenly, thinking of all those poor souls that go on that show, all I could do was cry. I can't imagine thinking airing my dirty laundry on national (international?) TV would really make me, or anyone else feel better. Of course, my dirty laundry isn't probably dirty enough to rank getting on Springer anyway.
This is sort of what I was feeling as I read the review. And it is also one of the prime reasons that I stick with Fantasy/Sci-fi/Space-opera type stories. I prefer a story that satisfies the basic ideals of good vs. evil, and it seems that only in fiction is this possible.
Now, don't get me wrong, there are some good non-fiction books out that deal with subjects that should be looked at with respect. But in all honesty, this obsession we have with the depths of depravity is the most depressing part of the human race. I don't know how we can fix this, but it is one of the things I fight against whenever I can. The glorification of things that shouldn't be glorified seems to be one of the biggest segments of any media/news or entertainment company. Even in the music industry, the truly talented musicians that work hard and keep their dignity are ignored, while the slacker junkies and "larger than life" people that trash motel rooms and throw fits left and right (remember Axl Rose?) are promoted as THE GREAT HERO.
I don't know, but I think that people enjoy this too much. Too many people want to see not "heroes" in the traditional sense, but they want to see people that make them feel better about their lives. They want to see that guy that's addicted to every drug in the world, because no matter how messed up they are they "won't ever do that". Or people want to see the guy that has enough money (and enough lawyers) that he can get by with destroying a motel room, and he is childish enough to think that's cool. Because then they can sit back and think, "Wow, I'm more mature than I thought. I wouldn't ever do that."
People aren't looking for positive role models. They want to see something that makes them feel better about themselves. That is why the golirification of negativity is so profitable. People don't want to see a "good person" glorified, because that makes them feel like they haven't done enough, it makes them feel guilty. Modern society has taught us something, "never question, never ask, never seek answers". Be contended in your stupidity, that is what big daddy business wants.
Well, I think what you've described is quite evident in todays society. People love to see other people act like idiots. It makes them feel somehow "superior" if they see someone else acting so unbelievably stupid that they realize they would never do that. Haven't you noticed how much time the press spends reporting on something where a person, or a group, acted irresponsibly and irrattionally? It is the main focus of almost every news company in the world today.
Stupidity is OK if it is done for entertainment, but I truly feel sorry for the poor soul that thought this would be a good idea. And you know that somewhere, there is a man or woman sitting back with a big smile on their face, thinking that they have just done the most wonderful thing in the world to promote their OS of choice. I'm sorry, but this poor soul does need to grow up a bit. While what he/she did is funny (when looking from the outside at it), it is also very immature. But I can't get angry, I only feel pity for them.
How does Katz do it. He wastes so much space to say what I've been saying the past few weeks very concisely.
The Net, much like the economy is in a correctionary period.
There you go, that's all it would have took. The page after page of bullshit spewing out of Katz's mouth is more for his own gratification than for the benefit of his readers. I grow tired of his irksome tendencies to blow even the simplest analysis into a huge, overbearing, bore-them-to-death article (or worse, a series). But yet, like a really bad car wreck I wish I hadn't seen, I can't look away.
Katz makes me feel like that one comedian described (Lewis Black?) feeling when he heard, "If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college." Ah, no, oh no, my head is going to explode.
I think the point you've missed is that Katz writes for the non-techie crowd, but posts primarily in the techie only hang-outs. He may not be stupid, but he certainly isn't the brigtest bulb in the batch if he targets the audience that he is trying to describe to others.
And besides that, Katz seems to be obsessed with re-inforcing whatever non-sense the general computer press is saying at the moment. Like others have said, when the computer biz was jumping along, he was praising computers and computer people. Now that dot-coms are falling like rain, and the PC industry is feeling the hurt, he is trying to say that computers suck and will destroy us all. Something about the way he approaches a story bothers me to. It's like he goes out of his way to write huge amounts of drivel without saying one thing. And he does it well. I doubt that I could write as many content free paragraphs as he does in a sitting without hurting my brain on the concept of leaving out any sort of point. But then again, if that's what I was paid to do I suppose I could find a way.
Granted, Katz always gets my interest. Much like a really bad car wreck, you don't want to see it, but when you do you can't turn away. It's a fascination with the macabre that draws me to Katz. I love to see the destruction he leaves in his wake (trolls and flamers, myself included).
BTW, didn't he himself say that people may not be able to understand this unless they already understand computers? How would that qualify as a book for the common man? It seems this one is targeted at the idiots that put blind faith in the computers. And most of those are people that know computers a little too well (or at least they assume they do).
I think I disagree with you on the point where the farcaster network was "destroyed" (even though only a part of it was really destroyed). Even when I first read it I saw that the woman that made that decision had done it for the betterment of society. The fact that it backfired for a few centuries doesn't mean that she did it out of spite. She did it to rid humanity of the yoke that the AIs had over them. I also think that as the story goes on in the Endymion books that you start to understand more and more how the Great Bitch (as you put it) was really acting in the best interests of humanity, and perhaps the universe.
Have you read the story that's in that collection book? It's called.... oh damn, something Orphans, or Orphans of something? I can't remember it. But the plot is basically about some of the ships that go seeking 'other' places after the shared moment. Very long after. It's in a collection of short stories from sci-fi writers that are revisiting their favorite large stories with small additions.
I agree with you that Simmons seemed to enjoy destroying the great society that he had developed. And I think that showed real courage for an author. Not only did those cooks demonstrate his ability to develop a full-fledged society, but it showed his ability to develop a full-fledged society, destroy that society, re-develop a new society, destroy that society, and by the end of the fourth book develop a completely new society. Not many authors have enough guts to completely destroy a society over and over and still have enough presence of mind to redevelop another completely believable society.
I think my favorite story in the first books was probably the story of the old scholar with the daughter aging backwards. That was just awesome story telling, and particularly tugging on my emotions because of how much I enjoy watching children grow, and knowing how painful it would be to watch them grown younger and lose their memories of the past.
But my favorite story overall, out of the whole mess, was probably the development at the end of the final book where we finally find out what the Shrike really is, or should I say, who the Shrike really is. In fact, I kind of wished that Simmons would write a story describing how that all comes about, but that's one good thing about Simmons. He doesn't describe things in such excruciating detail that there aren't any questions left. He leaves you enough room to let your own imagination try to fill in the gaps. I hope I am able to write half as well some day as he did in those books.
that being said i think it is important to identify assumptions and test them when appropriate. this often leads to great discoveries and i believe this last part is in alignment with your point of view. assumptions are like blind spots and the trick is identifying the blind spots that haven't been noticed before.
Yes, that's precisely what I mean. And I don't question everything that I come into contact with. But, when I go seeking answers to something, even if it is something that is "widely believed correct" in one particular way, I will typically go looking for all the other viewpoints and then try to figure out if those views are correct, or if it seems a middle line between them is correct, or if possibly something entirely new is correct. And even when I come to a conclusion (on a serious matter) I may revisit it and ask myself if I'm sure. Deep philosophical questions are the types of things I'm speaking of.
I may not question if the floor underfoot is solid enough to take my weight with each step, but I often find myself looking at ordinary things (like the floor) and asking if this is something that is real. You know, the old philosophical question, are we really here, or are we just dreaming this, or perhaps we are merely someone else's dream.
Of course, now that everyone thinks I'm insane, I'll just sign off.;-)
Although I would say that by my very nature I would be willing to give up the "question everything" mentality if someone were to provide me an alternative that actually made more sense.
Yes, but if you remember, the Ultimate Intelligence was basically a failure. And it turned out that the farcasters weren't nearly as powerful as was thought in the first two books (by the humans).
If you got to the third and fourth books (the Endymion books), you found out that the AI's that thought they were all that and a bag of chips (silicon to be exact) were actually scared out of their hypothetical pants by the lions and tigers and bears, or the other presences that they felt pressing them from out there.
In other words, even though they were way, way smarter than us, they weren't nearly know-it-alls, much as they wanted humanity to believe they were.
God, I loved those books, especially towards the end of the fourth one where things started to wrap together from the beginning. No spoilers if you haven't read the second pair of books, but suffice it to say that the answers to many of the questions that are hanging around from the first book are waiting in the fourth. And those that aren't answered just make the story that much more magical, in my mind.
Oh yeah, and every person understands how the AIs and farcasters operate after the shared moment. They took a while to explain it, but it did eventually come out.
OK, enough of the Simmons rant. I loved the Hyperion/Endymion books, and could talk about them for hours, but I won't.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, they must have really, REALLY marked up since the last time I bought something from them. I bought four computers (486 class) complete with monitors for under $150 (including shipping). I wouldn't have suggested it if I knew they had marked things up that much since then.
This whole thing makes me feel like that "blank tape tax" that the RIAA had years ago wasn't quite so vile. If it ever hits the point where I have to pay a tax on downloads that I make available for free, well, I guess I can forget ever making any music that isn't RIAA approved. How about they come into my house and monitor me to make sure I don't "illegally" play my guitar?
I've purchased a number of used computers from Computer Strippers in the past and they have always had very reasonable prices. They also tend to have some really good prices on new machines.
The people steering them, and paying them, the courts, and the legislature to look the other way as they rape both musicians and consumers, the RIAA.
I have a question. If we keep allowing the big media companies to make laws (OK, so this is a rule that isn't yet a law, but lets face it, with enough money you can push through any law you want) at what point do independent bands have to start paying a "you should use us" fee for publishing their music without using the traditional methods.
Example: I and my band record our music in my home studio. We then buy CDRs and a good quality CD printer (they aren't that expensive) for the labels on the CD and print out CD covers for the jewel case. We make our music available for download off the net, or available on CDR for a small fee (less than standard priced CDs). Now it would be unimaginable for the RIAA to come to us and say, "You have to pay us a fee because you aren't using us as a distribution method." But the way I see things going right now, I fear that it won't be long before this happens. Are people really going to let that happen? Or is my paranoia getting the best of me?
I really don't fully understand how the currently entrenched companies think that every new distribution method that comes up has to be under their control, but it seems that "the law" backs them up in this. Why? Why do the controllers of the current method of distribution have to have control of all future developments for distribution? As an independant musician, this sort of thing just scares the hell out of me.
Come on people, the RIAA didn't invent music, and they sure as hell didn't invent the ability to enjoy music. So why should they always be in control of all distrobution methods?
Sorry, but this angers and frightens me like you would not believe.
Every "new" technology is claimed to improve "the web experience" these days. The addition of the speech recognition is just because it was IBM they were talking about (they love speech recognition). Personally, I think anyone with a clue know that what's holding back the "web experience" is that we don't have fat enough pipes yet. I don't care if you buy the latest and greatest PIII (or I guess it's PIV now), if you stick a 56k modem in there (that can actually only connect at 23.5k) you are not going to massively increase the speed of downloads over that old Pentium 133 with the same modem.
Sorry, that's a little pet peeve of mine. Taking advantage of the computer clueless should be outlawed. But that would mean arresting every marketing idiot, er I mean genius, in the industry.
In the interim, exactly. You realize that the phone system, as it exists today, will eventually be as antiquated as the other methods of communication I mentioned. But the way they stated it, it was like there is no hope of ever having anything beyond the telephones and telephone system exactly as it exists today, we'll just keep adding numbers. Something about that doesn't strike me as right. We need to look into other options. But, I agree that in the interim we need to keep the phones running.
And let's not forget the driving force in everything in today's society. The status quo gathers more money for the businesses that already have the money. So don't expect the "next big thing" in voice communication to come from the already entrenched phone companies. But, that could just be my feeble mind jumping to conspiratorial conclusions.
Like I said, I'm not ready for video phones. Although, it would be a lot more fun calling up your girlfriend and trying to time it so that she had to run out of the shower;-). WEEEE!
Sorry, but this just strikes me as wrong. Why aren't we looking into making voice over IP an option. Or maybe start working on something similar that is based on some form of Internet standard. I'm not really ready for videophones everywhere, but surely we can come up with something better than the current telephone. Can't we?
Your comment made me think of something I've been wondering about for a while.
I started using courier on my web site as it appears the best on most systems. However, there seem to be a huge number of people developing web sites that use fonts that are totally dependent on anti-aliasing to make them legible.
My question would be, once we get anti-aliasing in XFree, is that going to be one more contingent ready to throw in the towel on good web development? I mean, when high-speed access started to be available in a few cities it seems that many web sites when completely out of their way to destroy even the possibility of viewing the site with anything less then a DSL or cable modem line. Are we about to see the next phase of the "get rid of the 'non-standard' users" trend we've seen developing over the years?
The part that really kills me on that is that the "standard", taken purely by the numbers, would actually be a low speed internet access option, and probably someone that doesn't know how to turn on font smoothing (if it didn't come turned on from the manufacturer, which I have yet to see on IBM compatibles). So if you don't have the same set-up and web connection as the developer, you are considered to be "non-standard" which seems to equate more and more to "irrelevant".
Sorry for the rant, it's just one of those topics that no one seems interested in addressing.
Hey, I didn't mean to knock wrestling. I watch wrestling almost every night. They have the "fun" part of entertainment figured out. And I've purchased quite a few pay-per-view wrestling events. But, even as an avid fan, I have to say that "intelligence" is not one of the things that TV wrestling is about. That's one of the prime reasons I like it. It's nice to occassionally shut down your brain and just enjoy something that is purely "fun". The Olympics on the other hand, are not fun at all.
Actually the last Olympics was so completely corporatized that it was totally antithema to the idealism that was at one time what was considered the "Olympic Spirit".
From the "You can't get in wearing a non-sponsor T-shirt" corporate cops, er security gaurds at the gate, to the "you can't eat that sandwich because it violates McDonalds right to sell you an EggMcMuffin" garbage where they would actually take food from people and throw it away, to this pathetic "ten year ban", the entire concept of the Olympics is completely and totally based on corporate greed. I look for the next Olympics to be so corporate-controlled that there will be no one allowed in unless they are wearing "OFFICIAL" Olympic clothes, and if you aren't you will be forced to purchase them at the gate. And if you wish to watch the Olympics on TV, you will have to purchase the "Olympic" version of some cable converter. Frankly, I hope they do that. It will show them that people aren't "that" interested in the Olympics. It was cool a few years back. But most of us are not going to be willing to go the route of "pay-per-view" Olympics on TV. It just wouldn't be worth it.
How many people that watched the Olympics just because the shows they normally watch weren't on? I know quite a few that just watched nothing rather than watch the Olympics. It just wasn't "fun" this time around. Corporatized sports are about as much "fun" as the WWF and WCW wrestling are "intelligent". It just isn't made to be that way.
Speaking in terms of the revenue that can be generated from a free software project makes it quite evident that you do not understand the basic principles driving it. Where exactly did I say it had to be another Microsoft? Frankly, the entire Microsoft vs. non-Microsoft crap is just a bunch of gibberish that is thrown into any sort of software discussion simply because people are scared that it might be possible that Microsoft can be sidestepped by someone. The company I work for has sidestepped MS, and more are following.
It's not that I hate MS, it's that I hate the idea that you are either for or against them. We use the best tool for each job we do. If we ever see a need for an MS based solution, it certainly won't destroy me to use it. Forget the entire "We don't want another MS" rant and realize that another choice to free software is not going to be another MS. I didn't say anywhere that I didn't want something modular. I wouldn't use it if it wasn't package based, or in some way easily managed. And I don't even see the possibility of a free software distro coming out without some form of package management in this day and age.
Nothing personal against you, but it seems you failed to grasp what I was driving at.
Believe me, I do understand completely where you are coming from. I too have fought with Linux installers trying to get a "bare-minimum" system installed, and it is a huge pain.
The only thing I was trying to ask is, why not have something "other" possible. I realize that OpenBSD is a great and tight little system. But, unless you are already a Unix guru, or at least willing to learn Unix fairly well, you either:
A) Won't have much use for a "standard" full installed OpenBSD system.
or
B) Will not be able to get enough installed on top of the "standard" full install to make a nice, clean, and "easy-to-use" (by the normal "idiot-friendly" standards) system.
My question wasn't about changing the current OpenBSD, but about how Theo, and/or the other OpenBSD team members would feel about another group pushing the desktop/easy-to-use/idiot-friendly type of installer and desktop system. I don't have the energy to pursue it (especially alone), but someone out there might do it if the interest was there.
Seriously, who wouldn't love a OpenBSD system with KDE2 + Mozilla + OpenOffice with a full code audit done on every piece of software on the system for their desktop/laptop? I just wondered if the current OpenBSD team would support such an effort, or mock it because of the dumbing-down effect (or appearance, as the case may be).
The sad thing about Springer (vs the WWF, where you know it's fiction) is that the portrayal of the people is that "this is real life" (and I assume that for some people it is).
It's just very sad, whether the stories are true or not, that so many people want to go on it. What's even sadder is the number of people that want to watch.
As someone who has used (and still uses) OpenBSD from time to time I have been extremely impressed with the security and the fact that it installs a "minimal" system that you can later build up.
However, as a person that deals with new entries into the use of open-source/free software on a regular basis, I have often wondered about the possibility of an easy to use/install version of OpenBSD. I realize in the past that the OpenBSD team has sort of shrugged off the ease of use idea as un-important when compared to the security issues, and that is all well and good for the primary drive of OpenBSD. However, as a person that would like to see people become more security concious (or at least aware of security as an issue), and a person that would love to see common desktop systems become far more secure, I have often wondered about developing a solid desktop system on top of OpenBSD.
My question is not whether or not you and the OpenBSD team would themselves do this. I believe you have addressed this in the past (with a resounding "not now"). But, I would be interested in whether you would support an effort to do this sort of project or not. If a group were established with the sole purpose of developing a desktop distribution based on OpenBSD (and auditing every line of the desktop applications as well as your current teams does the base system), would you look at that as a positive for OpenBSD, or a negative? Would you be willing to commicate with the individuals that would be attempting this, and occassionally help them out with coding issues if they asked? Or would you at least voice support for an effort such as this? Or would you flat out seperate "real" OpenBSD from any attempt to make it more "user friendly"?
I would be very interested in your response.
Wow, when I first read your comment I wanted to laugh. But suddenly, thinking of all those poor souls that go on that show, all I could do was cry. I can't imagine thinking airing my dirty laundry on national (international?) TV would really make me, or anyone else feel better. Of course, my dirty laundry isn't probably dirty enough to rank getting on Springer anyway.
This is sort of what I was feeling as I read the review. And it is also one of the prime reasons that I stick with Fantasy/Sci-fi/Space-opera type stories. I prefer a story that satisfies the basic ideals of good vs. evil, and it seems that only in fiction is this possible.
Now, don't get me wrong, there are some good non-fiction books out that deal with subjects that should be looked at with respect. But in all honesty, this obsession we have with the depths of depravity is the most depressing part of the human race. I don't know how we can fix this, but it is one of the things I fight against whenever I can. The glorification of things that shouldn't be glorified seems to be one of the biggest segments of any media/news or entertainment company. Even in the music industry, the truly talented musicians that work hard and keep their dignity are ignored, while the slacker junkies and "larger than life" people that trash motel rooms and throw fits left and right (remember Axl Rose?) are promoted as THE GREAT HERO.
I don't know, but I think that people enjoy this too much. Too many people want to see not "heroes" in the traditional sense, but they want to see people that make them feel better about their lives. They want to see that guy that's addicted to every drug in the world, because no matter how messed up they are they "won't ever do that". Or people want to see the guy that has enough money (and enough lawyers) that he can get by with destroying a motel room, and he is childish enough to think that's cool. Because then they can sit back and think, "Wow, I'm more mature than I thought. I wouldn't ever do that."
People aren't looking for positive role models. They want to see something that makes them feel better about themselves. That is why the golirification of negativity is so profitable. People don't want to see a "good person" glorified, because that makes them feel like they haven't done enough, it makes them feel guilty. Modern society has taught us something, "never question, never ask, never seek answers". Be contended in your stupidity, that is what big daddy business wants.
Well, I think what you've described is quite evident in todays society. People love to see other people act like idiots. It makes them feel somehow "superior" if they see someone else acting so unbelievably stupid that they realize they would never do that. Haven't you noticed how much time the press spends reporting on something where a person, or a group, acted irresponsibly and irrattionally? It is the main focus of almost every news company in the world today.
Stupidity is OK if it is done for entertainment, but I truly feel sorry for the poor soul that thought this would be a good idea. And you know that somewhere, there is a man or woman sitting back with a big smile on their face, thinking that they have just done the most wonderful thing in the world to promote their OS of choice. I'm sorry, but this poor soul does need to grow up a bit. While what he/she did is funny (when looking from the outside at it), it is also very immature. But I can't get angry, I only feel pity for them.
How does Katz do it. He wastes so much space to say what I've been saying the past few weeks very concisely.
The Net, much like the economy is in a correctionary period.
There you go, that's all it would have took. The page after page of bullshit spewing out of Katz's mouth is more for his own gratification than for the benefit of his readers. I grow tired of his irksome tendencies to blow even the simplest analysis into a huge, overbearing, bore-them-to-death article (or worse, a series). But yet, like a really bad car wreck I wish I hadn't seen, I can't look away.
Katz makes me feel like that one comedian described (Lewis Black?) feeling when he heard, "If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college." Ah, no, oh no, my head is going to explode.
I think the point you've missed is that Katz writes for the non-techie crowd, but posts primarily in the techie only hang-outs. He may not be stupid, but he certainly isn't the brigtest bulb in the batch if he targets the audience that he is trying to describe to others.
And besides that, Katz seems to be obsessed with re-inforcing whatever non-sense the general computer press is saying at the moment. Like others have said, when the computer biz was jumping along, he was praising computers and computer people. Now that dot-coms are falling like rain, and the PC industry is feeling the hurt, he is trying to say that computers suck and will destroy us all. Something about the way he approaches a story bothers me to. It's like he goes out of his way to write huge amounts of drivel without saying one thing. And he does it well. I doubt that I could write as many content free paragraphs as he does in a sitting without hurting my brain on the concept of leaving out any sort of point. But then again, if that's what I was paid to do I suppose I could find a way.
Granted, Katz always gets my interest. Much like a really bad car wreck, you don't want to see it, but when you do you can't turn away. It's a fascination with the macabre that draws me to Katz. I love to see the destruction he leaves in his wake (trolls and flamers, myself included).
BTW, didn't he himself say that people may not be able to understand this unless they already understand computers? How would that qualify as a book for the common man? It seems this one is targeted at the idiots that put blind faith in the computers. And most of those are people that know computers a little too well (or at least they assume they do).
Martin Silenus (sp?) just completely rocked.
I think I disagree with you on the point where the farcaster network was "destroyed" (even though only a part of it was really destroyed). Even when I first read it I saw that the woman that made that decision had done it for the betterment of society. The fact that it backfired for a few centuries doesn't mean that she did it out of spite. She did it to rid humanity of the yoke that the AIs had over them. I also think that as the story goes on in the Endymion books that you start to understand more and more how the Great Bitch (as you put it) was really acting in the best interests of humanity, and perhaps the universe.
Have you read the story that's in that collection book? It's called.... oh damn, something Orphans, or Orphans of something? I can't remember it. But the plot is basically about some of the ships that go seeking 'other' places after the shared moment. Very long after. It's in a collection of short stories from sci-fi writers that are revisiting their favorite large stories with small additions.
I agree with you that Simmons seemed to enjoy destroying the great society that he had developed. And I think that showed real courage for an author. Not only did those cooks demonstrate his ability to develop a full-fledged society, but it showed his ability to develop a full-fledged society, destroy that society, re-develop a new society, destroy that society, and by the end of the fourth book develop a completely new society. Not many authors have enough guts to completely destroy a society over and over and still have enough presence of mind to redevelop another completely believable society.
I think my favorite story in the first books was probably the story of the old scholar with the daughter aging backwards. That was just awesome story telling, and particularly tugging on my emotions because of how much I enjoy watching children grow, and knowing how painful it would be to watch them grown younger and lose their memories of the past.
But my favorite story overall, out of the whole mess, was probably the development at the end of the final book where we finally find out what the Shrike really is, or should I say, who the Shrike really is. In fact, I kind of wished that Simmons would write a story describing how that all comes about, but that's one good thing about Simmons. He doesn't describe things in such excruciating detail that there aren't any questions left. He leaves you enough room to let your own imagination try to fill in the gaps. I hope I am able to write half as well some day as he did in those books.
Yes, that's precisely what I mean. And I don't question everything that I come into contact with. But, when I go seeking answers to something, even if it is something that is "widely believed correct" in one particular way, I will typically go looking for all the other viewpoints and then try to figure out if those views are correct, or if it seems a middle line between them is correct, or if possibly something entirely new is correct. And even when I come to a conclusion (on a serious matter) I may revisit it and ask myself if I'm sure. Deep philosophical questions are the types of things I'm speaking of.
I may not question if the floor underfoot is solid enough to take my weight with each step, but I often find myself looking at ordinary things (like the floor) and asking if this is something that is real. You know, the old philosophical question, are we really here, or are we just dreaming this, or perhaps we are merely someone else's dream.
Of course, now that everyone thinks I'm insane, I'll just sign off.;-)
Good one;-).
Although I would say that by my very nature I would be willing to give up the "question everything" mentality if someone were to provide me an alternative that actually made more sense.
Yes, but if you remember, the Ultimate Intelligence was basically a failure. And it turned out that the farcasters weren't nearly as powerful as was thought in the first two books (by the humans).
If you got to the third and fourth books (the Endymion books), you found out that the AI's that thought they were all that and a bag of chips (silicon to be exact) were actually scared out of their hypothetical pants by the lions and tigers and bears, or the other presences that they felt pressing them from out there.
In other words, even though they were way, way smarter than us, they weren't nearly know-it-alls, much as they wanted humanity to believe they were.
God, I loved those books, especially towards the end of the fourth one where things started to wrap together from the beginning. No spoilers if you haven't read the second pair of books, but suffice it to say that the answers to many of the questions that are hanging around from the first book are waiting in the fourth. And those that aren't answered just make the story that much more magical, in my mind.
Oh yeah, and every person understands how the AIs and farcasters operate after the shared moment. They took a while to explain it, but it did eventually come out.
OK, enough of the Simmons rant. I loved the Hyperion/Endymion books, and could talk about them for hours, but I won't.;-)