I disagree. If you say 'no', how does that constitute and error?
And the fact that they LET you have a choice doesn't matter if your choice is "say yes" or "say no and get told you meant yes". That sounds about like the choice between Bush and Gore. And I know I keep rehashing this, but a choice between two options that leave you in the same state is not really a choice. And that is the big picture.
I don't think it should be blown up to be a case of 'violation', spam is just annoying, not violating. But it should be addressed. And a company that is knowingly doing such things (and I really doubt that this is done without anyone in the company having knowledge of it) should have its customers say, "What's going on?" at the very least.
This sounds very much like those spammers that offer an "unsubscribe" option in their unsolicited emails. You know, where they send you to a site to unsubscribe which really means you just put your email into a "yep, this one really exists" list and you will now get about four times as many emails from them?
Ebay is giving you the illusion of opting out of their emails, while still preserving their right to make sure you get everything they want you too (by claiming a glitch in the system no less). It's really quite ingenious. The average user would probably figure that there really was a glitch in the system and just shrug it off, meanwhile recieving a bunch of emails and saying, "Didn't I say no to this?" At least, I know quite a number of people that wouldn't be bright enough to connect the few. You know, the people that just totally turn off their brain when they sit in front of a computer? The ones that have to retrained on how to use it every day when they get to work because, "this computer stuff is hard"?
Of course it backfires when there is someone there with more than half of a clue, but they are going to risk that as most of their customers won't have that half a clue.
I disagree with that assessment. The top government officials are easily bought and paid for by the big corporations and special interest to pass laws and bills to help big business crack down on "illicit" uses of their materials. In other words, if you have the money, you matter far more.
People say that as a voter we all have an equal voice, but our "equal voice" to choose who we want is kind of quashed by the ability of the big names to buy off all of our choices. I don't consider the previous election (where Bush and Gore were the big name choices) to have offerend much choice. And if you voted for a third party you were screamed at and told that you were ruining the election. Some very vocal people even went so far as to say that third parties should not be allowed to participate in the elections as it "takes votes away" from the parties that "deserve" the votes. In my mind, that is indictive that there are problems in our government, but that most of them are cheered forward by the problems in the population.
Chicken and egg here, which do you try to clean up first? If the government, how do you keep it clean if the people are all idiots? If the people, how do you prevent the government from becoming far more powerful in their attempts to "clean up" the population and thus rendering the clean up moot?
Ah, I've wandered into a bad territory I think. But I don't think that our government is working just fine. It may not be broken, but it isn't perfect either. And saying that it doesn't need fixed will not lead to improvements. That's the joy of democracy. People are supposed to be able to voice their opinions on the problems in government so that eventually those problems can be addressed. As long as that remains so, I won't completely condemn our government, but I won't sing it's praises either.
This is why we have laws against false advertising. I think they are a very good thing, and need to be much more strict.
Or, how about we just make it much more difficult to thwart the laws that are already in place. The reason the laws as they exist "don't work" is that the law sort of steps around any corporation that has enough money to umm, sort of lube the wheels of justice, if you know what I'm saying.
It would be nice if the rich had to adhere to the same rules and laws as the poor. In my mind, that would be a real good start to cleaning up government. I don't know that we need more laws. Just better enforcement, and incentives in place to make sure that law enforcement and other government functions don't just happen to look the other way when things go down with one of the richer corps. Of course, we would also have to be careful that the incentives don't incite wrongful prosecution (don't make it conviction based incentives?). It's an interesting dilema. And one we won't see adressed anytime soon. Money is too important to todays government officials.
Personally, I don't feel that it's the government that should do things for us. I think that people should get more interested in their own education. I know that most of what I've learned over the past ten to fifteen years didn't come from classrooms (only a few months in classes in that amount of time), but from curiosity and seeking answers on my own. If you "empower" the government to make sure that they protect us from our own stupidity, eventually that protection will ensure our stupidity.
I do think you are right however that the Internet isn't as "mush brain" oriented as TV. But the same principles apply to the Internet as applied to the TV when it first gained popularity. There are a lot of people out there that are scared and confused by it because they don't understand it. And while both can be used for educational purposes, those purposes are usually overlooked by those who wish to detract from the overall usefulness of the medium.
The author also seemed to be assuming that the net is already a completely corporate controlled place. I didn't see any mention of the fact that even if it is a corporate controlled place, people are still responsible for making their own decisions about the information they are fed.
Seriously, it sounds to me like the scare tactics that were originally spouted forth by those that were scared of the influence TV would have on the nations population. TV is making people dumb.
Wrong, people are making people dumb. Being dumb is easy, and people are inclined to take the easy path for the most part. But there will always be a few people that are willing to question the stupidity that they are spoon-fed from birth. I have always tried to be one of those people. And quite frankly, I'm just as likely to question the motives of the author of this article as I am to question the motives of the advertising agencies that put up drivel on TV and in the magazines I read.
It seems the author suffers a major case of blind faith in big government. Or at the very least a complete lack of faith in his fellow man. Granted, I have little faith in humanity on the whole, but individuals will always hold far more power and perception than most are willing to admit. All it takes is for a few to say, "What the fuck?" to any given situation. As long as there are always a few people willing to do that, I don't really "fear" the Internet, or any other form of pushing information on the idiot masses. Because not all of us "masses" are complete "idiots". And assuming that we are is just asking for trouble. Asking for more government regulation of a medium that was not so long ago essentially "free" (as in freedom of speech) is just such an assumption. You don't need to protect people from themselves. And the more you do so, or ask for such, the more you insult them/us.
I thought that one of our big problems in the freedom department right now is that government regulation is actually increasing the power that the coroprate interests have over our lives. I realize that some people still put an awful lot of faith in the government, but I don't care how you spell it out. If you think that by asking the government to take more power you are going to make things better for the common citizen (and actually get meaningful regulation of big business)....
...well, let's just say that I think big government is not the answer to big business taking control. Big business+big government is not going to equal big freedom. But, I'm sure in time we'll see the proof of that. After all, we are rushing headlong into the era of big business corporate control. And most people are actually pushing as hard as they can to make it happen. Ah well.
Well, I'm lucky I guess. I'm one of the few people that lives in a town with a full-fledged Apple store in it. So I don't go to any of the "major" computer stores if I want to see Apple hardware, I go to the dealer. Kind of nice.
But, I have seen the Apple displays in the PC-centric stores and agree whole-heartedly, the displays they are using does more to harm their image than help it.
That's cool for you, and seriously, I've considered purchasing a Mac just to try out OS X (but will definitely wait until it has been out a while first).
But, you represent another perspective from the people that use LinuxPPC. You are someone, as you said, that purchased a Mac just for OS X. I think that OS X will probably gain a lot more support from Windows/ex-Windows users than it will from the hard-core Unix/Linux crowd. Don't get me wrong, there will be some converts I'm sure (the ability to cross-compile easily will help a lot I'm sure), but I doubt we will see a massive migration from LinuxPPC users. At least, I doubt we will, but I could be proven wrong.
And, BTW, as the first "consumer" (god I hate that word) operating system based on Unix, I really hope that OS X takes off big time. I would love to see Unix become more of a mainstream OS, and less of a "Ewwwww, you use Unix!?" type of OS. But, that's just me I guess.
Maybe it was just me, but didn't that article seem to be written by someone that seriously was just trying to say, "MacOS X will be your new operating system."
I know the person writing it wasn't trying to be biased, but in all honesty, it seemed like maybe he just didn't quite seem to have a middle-line grasp for why someone does use LinuxPPC. Not that there's anything wrong with that, to each his own and all that. But I don't think that his conclusions are complete correct.
Yes, MacOS X is going to give some nice features for open source advocates and Linux users. However, if you are a Linux user, there is that little problem that any "OS Conversion" attempt has to overcome. That being, the mentality in the to be converted that they already have a system doing what they want it to do, and they know how to get the job done. It's the same reason that Windows is still as prevalent as it is. And the reason that Linux didn't just disappear when Win2K came out (which the article touched on).
I think there is far more to people using LinuxPPC than just because of the Unixness of it over the 'old' MacOS. There is also the fact that some people just don't want to use commercial OSes (no matter how much 'non-commercial' stuff is in it). There is the fact that some people actually enjoy using Linux as it is. There is the fact that some people (that own older Mac hardware, or even newer) that disagree with the philosophies that drive MacOS development (the people that see ease-of-use as dumbing down). And there are countless other reasons that some people just don't want to use MacOS and would rather use LinuxPPC. Some people may even buy Macs just for the purpose of running LinuxPPC (I know a few that have done just that). Why would they dump the OS that they chose just to run the OS that is the most popular?
I understand the point of the article, MacOS X does provide a few of the same positive points as LinuxPPC. But I disagree with the implied conclusion that everyone should just dump LinuxPPC in favor of OS X. And I disagree with the stated conclusion that people "cannot" have an objection to MacOS X. The hardliners are still going to say it isn't Open Source (and they would be right for the graphical systems). And the Linux users that are out there aren't going to just roll over and say, "Well, I guess Apple is right." Just like the i86 users didn't just roll over and install Win2K when it came out. MacOS X may have a few more advantages than Win2K, but there is still plenty to be desired if you are a Linux user/advocate. At least, in my opinion there is.
A lot of times, especially on the internet, people critique journalists regarding the fact that they weren't precise about such-n-such. The problem with most of these critiques is that if the writer took the pains to precisely describe everything, their style would come off as tedious, long winded, pedantic, and perhaps under confident.
Dude, you just got a prime spot in my Jon Katz analysis page (to be released soon).;-)
It's probably just a 'tail -f' run through some fancy schmancy graphical environment with all the "normal" stuff filtered out. I know that tail -f 'logfile' | grep "whatever I'm looking for" has always done the trick for me. But the boss would really like it to be colorized and fancified, with buttons to click and bar graphs.
Don't mind me. I've had one of those weeks where even the thinking that humans mean anything more than the dollar signs they can generate is grounds for termination. Time to look for a new job methinks.
You do realize that no one was sent to help that sub until it was a "safe bet" that everyone aboard was dead right? I wonder why. Could it be because it would have been too expensive to try and rescue living breathing people, but it was pretty important to get whatever technology was aboard back to the surface?
If you find a way to take one of these cool new technologies and turn a profit on it you will have so many people doing things with it it won't even be funny.
Unfortunately, real science doesn't usually turn a profit (I know there are exceptions). And that dollar amount on the bottom line is all that really matters in our world today.
But, the nice thing is that if someone finds a way to make money off of space exploration (pet Mars rocks?), then there will be a mad rush to explore other planets. Not that it will be with the best of intentions, but at least some of us could get off of this rock.
I wonder if the same sort of thing would happen today, when the bottom line is far more important than a few measly human lives, even well trained humans?
Do you think, if NASA ever got up enough guts to do something other than ferry out satellites, that they would still put every effort into saving a seemingly lost crew? Would they be smart enough to realize that they would lose massive amounts of support if they just "lost contact"? Or would they actually be dumb enough to listen to that bean-counter in the corner saying, "This is costing XXX million every minute that you try to help them."?
I really doubt, with the current cynisism (of which I myself am a prime example) of the world that a mission that looked like it was impossible to rescue would bring people together like it did back then. I know I sound like an old timer, but there is so little reason to "prove yourself" in the world today. Who would we be trying to show up if it happened now? I think that was as much motivation as the prospect of doing something new and exciting.
But, I suppose I'm wrong about that too. Don't listen to me, I'm a moron.
It's amazing how we say exactly the same thing and yet you see me as a zealotous young freak.
As I said, as long as it is optional, I don't care. It's that entire mentality that options must be removed to "keep it simple" that I fight against, and yes, it does piss me off.
At 27 years of age, I have learned a long time ago that fighting in real life is not allowed. You are supposed to bend over and take whatever shit is thrown your way. But, on something that actually matters, I rarely do. Which probably explains my relatively low station in life. I don't kiss enough ass to make it out of the "you must be a little fuck-head" stage in other people's eyes.
That's alright. I should have known that the concept of expressing concerns is just completely not allowed on slashdot. After all, this is the zealots playground.
Well, install Corel Linux (any version) on a computer and try to make it a usable Linux system. Then maybe you will understand my "irrational fear". Also take into consideration how many people in the "popular" computer press applauded how great an effort Corel had put forth, and how completely crappy and utterly useless they claim all other distros are, and maybe you will see the pattern I have seen.
On the other hand, I'm probably just a fucking idiot spouting off because he's too afraid of a future filled with drooling morons. Perhaps the corporate think was just a little too much for me today.
You think this is a strawman? I said, don't remove choice. Everyone starts jumping up and down saying, "We aren't". I say, "have you looked at distros lately?" Everyone says, you are a fucking idiot.
I agree, I am a fucking idiot. Somewhere here there is a message that I am obviously not capable of getting across. Too many people are utterly convinced that Linux cannot be taken in a direction that isn't positive, and any direction it goes is bound to be good.
So fucking be it. Rarely do I see this closed-minded mentality in the BSD world. I guess it's true. Bring the masses to *nix, and the masses will become far more zealotous over the idealisms that "could" be there than any of the zealots were over the hopes that were there.
FUCKING HELL! This is probably the stupidest flamewar I've been involved in. And I just can't understand why it is so hard to accept someone saying honestly that as long as it is a choice, I have no problem with it. And believe it or not, I've said that over and over again.
But no one seems to see that. All they see is the chance to piss someone off. SO FUCK YOU ALL!
Jesus christ, and people wonder why slashdot is full of trolls. It's because you are labelled that way even if you are trying to be rational. Fucking bunch of stuck up idiots.
Thanks a million. It does my heart good to know that every time I'm stupid enough to open my mouth there will always be someone there to remind me that my opinions tag me as the epitome of what I hate.
It really seems difficult for people to wrap their heads around what I am saying when I bring up the "removing choices" idealisms that I see getting bandied about. But, that's my problem I guess. After all, I'm fucking dumb enough to actually enjoy using the tools that I have right here in front of me. How dare I be so fucking idiotic!
Wow, it seems I've really pissed some people off with the preceding comment. I even managed a flamebait rating. So, allow me to post my apologies.
I'm sorry that I don't believe Linux should become a Windows clone.
I'm sorry that I don't believe the concept of removing choices is a good thing.
I'm sorry that I am happy with the current tool I have (namely, I'm happy with Unix and clones right now).
I'm sorry that I don't tow the line and say that the ultimate goal for Linux should be total desktop domination and that the only way to achieve that domination is by destroying Linux as it exists and turning it into an exact duplicate of Windows.
I'm sorry that I disagree with the "slashdot majority".
I'm sorry that I said Windows isn't that bad. (That one is probably the reason I got "flamebait".)
And mostly I'm sorry that I was stupid enough to voice my opinion on an article about something flashy and stupid for Linux.
I really don't see how a boot-splash is newsworthy. Eye-candy is great, but what's the real use of it? Whatever.
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that we were going to ignore all the trends we've seen over the last few years in Linux distros.
My choices now if I want to install a completely X-free distro are Slackware and Debian. Granted, they are great, but what happened to the idea that things are "optional" in all the other distros.
SuSE used to exemplify the idea of options, but now, with YaST2 a requirement of the install and X a requirement of YaST2, unless you fight the installer you are stuck with X on every system you install. Same with Red Hat and their various install "options". It becomes more of a fight every time I try to install a new Linux distro to get a stripped down version installed.
You think that I sound paranoid, and I probably do to someone that is completely happy with the "we must please the public majority" crowd. But I'm not one of that crowd, and I don't want to spend countless hours fighting with source code just to have a stripped down Linux install on my headless fileservers. And sadly, I can see that day coming already.
It might be paranoid, but that doesn't mean that it's completely untrue.
For some reason I really didn't think that saying what I said would garner me so many accusations of zealotism. I guess I should stay out of the Linux/Unix discussions. After all, I wouldn't speak if I didn't want to be labelled a zealot.
You are just totally and completely missing everything that I am saying. I don't mind the added "choice" as long as it remains as "choice".
My fear is that we, as Linux/Unix users, will start having a system that dictates to us how it is to be used as much as the Windows system does today. That is not something I want to see. If it's just a splash screen that can be disabled fine and dandy. But, if it is a splash screen that has to be there then it would bother me. I just don't understand why it is such an exciting and wonderful development in the first place. After all, it is just a splash screen, no?
And, on top of that, your insistance in instigating "holy war" status to this conversation seems very trollish. Of course, it could be that I've spent too much time perusing advocacy groups.
My problem stems from the entire mentality that we must have a Windows clone built into Linux, and that we should remove choice from the user because, "CHOICE IS A BAD THING". I disagree with that approach, and it is why I mentioned Corel Linux specifically. It tried that approach and was not exactly accepted with open arms.
Bah! This is heading into religious territory. And I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not one of those people that is going to lecture you about the "HOLY UNIX". I don't give a fuck about it's religious status. It's a tool I use to do my job. And as a tool it serves its purpose well. I just don't want to see my tool taken from me as a swiss army knife and being returned to me as a single bladed pocket knife. That's where I'm coming from. Misrepresent that any way you want to. Religious wars are pointless.
Yeah, I know that. But for the most part it seems that people are satisfied/happy to just sit there and take whatever garbage the RIAA/MPAA are willing to pull out of their collective asses. I would like to see more independent labels being successful in recording land, and more independent film makers actually getting some recognition. But since the big boys control the channels of "recognition" that's not likely to happen.
Also, you'd be suprised how easy it is to rant when you get zero sleep and dose up on caffiene. It gives you a clarity in the rant department that is much better than anything you can get through other means. Lack of sleep is always a good inspiration driver for me.
I may check out that book, although it sounds kind of familiar to me. I'll have to check my library (yes, I have quite the book collection).
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. If you say 'no', how does that constitute and error?
And the fact that they LET you have a choice doesn't matter if your choice is "say yes" or "say no and get told you meant yes". That sounds about like the choice between Bush and Gore. And I know I keep rehashing this, but a choice between two options that leave you in the same state is not really a choice. And that is the big picture.
I don't think it should be blown up to be a case of 'violation', spam is just annoying, not violating. But it should be addressed. And a company that is knowingly doing such things (and I really doubt that this is done without anyone in the company having knowledge of it) should have its customers say, "What's going on?" at the very least.
This sounds very much like those spammers that offer an "unsubscribe" option in their unsolicited emails. You know, where they send you to a site to unsubscribe which really means you just put your email into a "yep, this one really exists" list and you will now get about four times as many emails from them?
Ebay is giving you the illusion of opting out of their emails, while still preserving their right to make sure you get everything they want you too (by claiming a glitch in the system no less). It's really quite ingenious. The average user would probably figure that there really was a glitch in the system and just shrug it off, meanwhile recieving a bunch of emails and saying, "Didn't I say no to this?" At least, I know quite a number of people that wouldn't be bright enough to connect the few. You know, the people that just totally turn off their brain when they sit in front of a computer? The ones that have to retrained on how to use it every day when they get to work because, "this computer stuff is hard"?
Of course it backfires when there is someone there with more than half of a clue, but they are going to risk that as most of their customers won't have that half a clue.
I disagree with that assessment. The top government officials are easily bought and paid for by the big corporations and special interest to pass laws and bills to help big business crack down on "illicit" uses of their materials. In other words, if you have the money, you matter far more.
People say that as a voter we all have an equal voice, but our "equal voice" to choose who we want is kind of quashed by the ability of the big names to buy off all of our choices. I don't consider the previous election (where Bush and Gore were the big name choices) to have offerend much choice. And if you voted for a third party you were screamed at and told that you were ruining the election. Some very vocal people even went so far as to say that third parties should not be allowed to participate in the elections as it "takes votes away" from the parties that "deserve" the votes. In my mind, that is indictive that there are problems in our government, but that most of them are cheered forward by the problems in the population.
Chicken and egg here, which do you try to clean up first? If the government, how do you keep it clean if the people are all idiots? If the people, how do you prevent the government from becoming far more powerful in their attempts to "clean up" the population and thus rendering the clean up moot?
Ah, I've wandered into a bad territory I think. But I don't think that our government is working just fine. It may not be broken, but it isn't perfect either. And saying that it doesn't need fixed will not lead to improvements. That's the joy of democracy. People are supposed to be able to voice their opinions on the problems in government so that eventually those problems can be addressed. As long as that remains so, I won't completely condemn our government, but I won't sing it's praises either.
It would be nice if the rich had to adhere to the same rules and laws as the poor. In my mind, that would be a real good start to cleaning up government. I don't know that we need more laws. Just better enforcement, and incentives in place to make sure that law enforcement and other government functions don't just happen to look the other way when things go down with one of the richer corps. Of course, we would also have to be careful that the incentives don't incite wrongful prosecution (don't make it conviction based incentives?). It's an interesting dilema. And one we won't see adressed anytime soon. Money is too important to todays government officials.
Personally, I don't feel that it's the government that should do things for us. I think that people should get more interested in their own education. I know that most of what I've learned over the past ten to fifteen years didn't come from classrooms (only a few months in classes in that amount of time), but from curiosity and seeking answers on my own. If you "empower" the government to make sure that they protect us from our own stupidity, eventually that protection will ensure our stupidity.
I do think you are right however that the Internet isn't as "mush brain" oriented as TV. But the same principles apply to the Internet as applied to the TV when it first gained popularity. There are a lot of people out there that are scared and confused by it because they don't understand it. And while both can be used for educational purposes, those purposes are usually overlooked by those who wish to detract from the overall usefulness of the medium.
The author also seemed to be assuming that the net is already a completely corporate controlled place. I didn't see any mention of the fact that even if it is a corporate controlled place, people are still responsible for making their own decisions about the information they are fed.
Seriously, it sounds to me like the scare tactics that were originally spouted forth by those that were scared of the influence TV would have on the nations population. TV is making people dumb.
Wrong, people are making people dumb. Being dumb is easy, and people are inclined to take the easy path for the most part. But there will always be a few people that are willing to question the stupidity that they are spoon-fed from birth. I have always tried to be one of those people. And quite frankly, I'm just as likely to question the motives of the author of this article as I am to question the motives of the advertising agencies that put up drivel on TV and in the magazines I read.
It seems the author suffers a major case of blind faith in big government. Or at the very least a complete lack of faith in his fellow man. Granted, I have little faith in humanity on the whole, but individuals will always hold far more power and perception than most are willing to admit. All it takes is for a few to say, "What the fuck?" to any given situation. As long as there are always a few people willing to do that, I don't really "fear" the Internet, or any other form of pushing information on the idiot masses. Because not all of us "masses" are complete "idiots". And assuming that we are is just asking for trouble. Asking for more government regulation of a medium that was not so long ago essentially "free" (as in freedom of speech) is just such an assumption. You don't need to protect people from themselves. And the more you do so, or ask for such, the more you insult them/us.
I thought that one of our big problems in the freedom department right now is that government regulation is actually increasing the power that the coroprate interests have over our lives. I realize that some people still put an awful lot of faith in the government, but I don't care how you spell it out. If you think that by asking the government to take more power you are going to make things better for the common citizen (and actually get meaningful regulation of big business)....
...well, let's just say that I think big government is not the answer to big business taking control. Big business+big government is not going to equal big freedom. But, I'm sure in time we'll see the proof of that. After all, we are rushing headlong into the era of big business corporate control. And most people are actually pushing as hard as they can to make it happen. Ah well.
Well, I'm lucky I guess. I'm one of the few people that lives in a town with a full-fledged Apple store in it. So I don't go to any of the "major" computer stores if I want to see Apple hardware, I go to the dealer. Kind of nice.
But, I have seen the Apple displays in the PC-centric stores and agree whole-heartedly, the displays they are using does more to harm their image than help it.
OK, how about I say, as the first "consumer" OS of the late 90's-early 00's to have a Unix base?
That's cool for you, and seriously, I've considered purchasing a Mac just to try out OS X (but will definitely wait until it has been out a while first).
But, you represent another perspective from the people that use LinuxPPC. You are someone, as you said, that purchased a Mac just for OS X. I think that OS X will probably gain a lot more support from Windows/ex-Windows users than it will from the hard-core Unix/Linux crowd. Don't get me wrong, there will be some converts I'm sure (the ability to cross-compile easily will help a lot I'm sure), but I doubt we will see a massive migration from LinuxPPC users. At least, I doubt we will, but I could be proven wrong.
And, BTW, as the first "consumer" (god I hate that word) operating system based on Unix, I really hope that OS X takes off big time. I would love to see Unix become more of a mainstream OS, and less of a "Ewwwww, you use Unix!?" type of OS. But, that's just me I guess.
Maybe it was just me, but didn't that article seem to be written by someone that seriously was just trying to say, "MacOS X will be your new operating system."
I know the person writing it wasn't trying to be biased, but in all honesty, it seemed like maybe he just didn't quite seem to have a middle-line grasp for why someone does use LinuxPPC. Not that there's anything wrong with that, to each his own and all that. But I don't think that his conclusions are complete correct.
Yes, MacOS X is going to give some nice features for open source advocates and Linux users. However, if you are a Linux user, there is that little problem that any "OS Conversion" attempt has to overcome. That being, the mentality in the to be converted that they already have a system doing what they want it to do, and they know how to get the job done. It's the same reason that Windows is still as prevalent as it is. And the reason that Linux didn't just disappear when Win2K came out (which the article touched on).
I think there is far more to people using LinuxPPC than just because of the Unixness of it over the 'old' MacOS. There is also the fact that some people just don't want to use commercial OSes (no matter how much 'non-commercial' stuff is in it). There is the fact that some people actually enjoy using Linux as it is. There is the fact that some people (that own older Mac hardware, or even newer) that disagree with the philosophies that drive MacOS development (the people that see ease-of-use as dumbing down). And there are countless other reasons that some people just don't want to use MacOS and would rather use LinuxPPC. Some people may even buy Macs just for the purpose of running LinuxPPC (I know a few that have done just that). Why would they dump the OS that they chose just to run the OS that is the most popular?
I understand the point of the article, MacOS X does provide a few of the same positive points as LinuxPPC. But I disagree with the implied conclusion that everyone should just dump LinuxPPC in favor of OS X. And I disagree with the stated conclusion that people "cannot" have an objection to MacOS X. The hardliners are still going to say it isn't Open Source (and they would be right for the graphical systems). And the Linux users that are out there aren't going to just roll over and say, "Well, I guess Apple is right." Just like the i86 users didn't just roll over and install Win2K when it came out. MacOS X may have a few more advantages than Win2K, but there is still plenty to be desired if you are a Linux user/advocate. At least, in my opinion there is.
Dude, you just got a prime spot in my Jon Katz analysis page (to be released soon).;-)
(Really, I meant it as a joke.)
It's probably just a 'tail -f' run through some fancy schmancy graphical environment with all the "normal" stuff filtered out. I know that tail -f 'logfile' | grep "whatever I'm looking for" has always done the trick for me. But the boss would really like it to be colorized and fancified, with buttons to click and bar graphs.
I would hope you are right.
Don't mind me. I've had one of those weeks where even the thinking that humans mean anything more than the dollar signs they can generate is grounds for termination. Time to look for a new job methinks.
You do realize that no one was sent to help that sub until it was a "safe bet" that everyone aboard was dead right? I wonder why. Could it be because it would have been too expensive to try and rescue living breathing people, but it was pretty important to get whatever technology was aboard back to the surface?
If you find a way to take one of these cool new technologies and turn a profit on it you will have so many people doing things with it it won't even be funny.
Unfortunately, real science doesn't usually turn a profit (I know there are exceptions). And that dollar amount on the bottom line is all that really matters in our world today.
But, the nice thing is that if someone finds a way to make money off of space exploration (pet Mars rocks?), then there will be a mad rush to explore other planets. Not that it will be with the best of intentions, but at least some of us could get off of this rock.
I wonder if the same sort of thing would happen today, when the bottom line is far more important than a few measly human lives, even well trained humans?
Do you think, if NASA ever got up enough guts to do something other than ferry out satellites, that they would still put every effort into saving a seemingly lost crew? Would they be smart enough to realize that they would lose massive amounts of support if they just "lost contact"? Or would they actually be dumb enough to listen to that bean-counter in the corner saying, "This is costing XXX million every minute that you try to help them."?
I really doubt, with the current cynisism (of which I myself am a prime example) of the world that a mission that looked like it was impossible to rescue would bring people together like it did back then. I know I sound like an old timer, but there is so little reason to "prove yourself" in the world today. Who would we be trying to show up if it happened now? I think that was as much motivation as the prospect of doing something new and exciting.
But, I suppose I'm wrong about that too. Don't listen to me, I'm a moron.
It's amazing how we say exactly the same thing and yet you see me as a zealotous young freak.
As I said, as long as it is optional, I don't care. It's that entire mentality that options must be removed to "keep it simple" that I fight against, and yes, it does piss me off.
At 27 years of age, I have learned a long time ago that fighting in real life is not allowed. You are supposed to bend over and take whatever shit is thrown your way. But, on something that actually matters, I rarely do. Which probably explains my relatively low station in life. I don't kiss enough ass to make it out of the "you must be a little fuck-head" stage in other people's eyes.
That's alright. I should have known that the concept of expressing concerns is just completely not allowed on slashdot. After all, this is the zealots playground.
Well, install Corel Linux (any version) on a computer and try to make it a usable Linux system. Then maybe you will understand my "irrational fear". Also take into consideration how many people in the "popular" computer press applauded how great an effort Corel had put forth, and how completely crappy and utterly useless they claim all other distros are, and maybe you will see the pattern I have seen.
On the other hand, I'm probably just a fucking idiot spouting off because he's too afraid of a future filled with drooling morons. Perhaps the corporate think was just a little too much for me today.
You think this is a strawman? I said, don't remove choice. Everyone starts jumping up and down saying, "We aren't". I say, "have you looked at distros lately?" Everyone says, you are a fucking idiot.
I agree, I am a fucking idiot. Somewhere here there is a message that I am obviously not capable of getting across. Too many people are utterly convinced that Linux cannot be taken in a direction that isn't positive, and any direction it goes is bound to be good.
So fucking be it. Rarely do I see this closed-minded mentality in the BSD world. I guess it's true. Bring the masses to *nix, and the masses will become far more zealotous over the idealisms that "could" be there than any of the zealots were over the hopes that were there.
FUCKING HELL! This is probably the stupidest flamewar I've been involved in. And I just can't understand why it is so hard to accept someone saying honestly that as long as it is a choice, I have no problem with it. And believe it or not, I've said that over and over again.
But no one seems to see that. All they see is the chance to piss someone off. SO FUCK YOU ALL!
Jesus christ, and people wonder why slashdot is full of trolls. It's because you are labelled that way even if you are trying to be rational. Fucking bunch of stuck up idiots.
Thanks a million. It does my heart good to know that every time I'm stupid enough to open my mouth there will always be someone there to remind me that my opinions tag me as the epitome of what I hate.
It really seems difficult for people to wrap their heads around what I am saying when I bring up the "removing choices" idealisms that I see getting bandied about. But, that's my problem I guess. After all, I'm fucking dumb enough to actually enjoy using the tools that I have right here in front of me. How dare I be so fucking idiotic!
Wow, it seems I've really pissed some people off with the preceding comment. I even managed a flamebait rating. So, allow me to post my apologies.
I'm sorry that I don't believe Linux should become a Windows clone.
I'm sorry that I don't believe the concept of removing choices is a good thing.
I'm sorry that I am happy with the current tool I have (namely, I'm happy with Unix and clones right now).
I'm sorry that I don't tow the line and say that the ultimate goal for Linux should be total desktop domination and that the only way to achieve that domination is by destroying Linux as it exists and turning it into an exact duplicate of Windows.
I'm sorry that I disagree with the "slashdot majority".
I'm sorry that I said Windows isn't that bad. (That one is probably the reason I got "flamebait".)
And mostly I'm sorry that I was stupid enough to voice my opinion on an article about something flashy and stupid for Linux.
I really don't see how a boot-splash is newsworthy. Eye-candy is great, but what's the real use of it? Whatever.
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that we were going to ignore all the trends we've seen over the last few years in Linux distros.
My choices now if I want to install a completely X-free distro are Slackware and Debian. Granted, they are great, but what happened to the idea that things are "optional" in all the other distros.
SuSE used to exemplify the idea of options, but now, with YaST2 a requirement of the install and X a requirement of YaST2, unless you fight the installer you are stuck with X on every system you install. Same with Red Hat and their various install "options". It becomes more of a fight every time I try to install a new Linux distro to get a stripped down version installed.
You think that I sound paranoid, and I probably do to someone that is completely happy with the "we must please the public majority" crowd. But I'm not one of that crowd, and I don't want to spend countless hours fighting with source code just to have a stripped down Linux install on my headless fileservers. And sadly, I can see that day coming already.
It might be paranoid, but that doesn't mean that it's completely untrue.
For some reason I really didn't think that saying what I said would garner me so many accusations of zealotism. I guess I should stay out of the Linux/Unix discussions. After all, I wouldn't speak if I didn't want to be labelled a zealot.
You are just totally and completely missing everything that I am saying. I don't mind the added "choice" as long as it remains as "choice".
My fear is that we, as Linux/Unix users, will start having a system that dictates to us how it is to be used as much as the Windows system does today. That is not something I want to see. If it's just a splash screen that can be disabled fine and dandy. But, if it is a splash screen that has to be there then it would bother me. I just don't understand why it is such an exciting and wonderful development in the first place. After all, it is just a splash screen, no?
And, on top of that, your insistance in instigating "holy war" status to this conversation seems very trollish. Of course, it could be that I've spent too much time perusing advocacy groups.
My problem stems from the entire mentality that we must have a Windows clone built into Linux, and that we should remove choice from the user because, "CHOICE IS A BAD THING". I disagree with that approach, and it is why I mentioned Corel Linux specifically. It tried that approach and was not exactly accepted with open arms.
Bah! This is heading into religious territory. And I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not one of those people that is going to lecture you about the "HOLY UNIX". I don't give a fuck about it's religious status. It's a tool I use to do my job. And as a tool it serves its purpose well. I just don't want to see my tool taken from me as a swiss army knife and being returned to me as a single bladed pocket knife. That's where I'm coming from. Misrepresent that any way you want to. Religious wars are pointless.
Yeah, I know that. But for the most part it seems that people are satisfied/happy to just sit there and take whatever garbage the RIAA/MPAA are willing to pull out of their collective asses. I would like to see more independent labels being successful in recording land, and more independent film makers actually getting some recognition. But since the big boys control the channels of "recognition" that's not likely to happen.
Also, you'd be suprised how easy it is to rant when you get zero sleep and dose up on caffiene. It gives you a clarity in the rant department that is much better than anything you can get through other means. Lack of sleep is always a good inspiration driver for me.
I may check out that book, although it sounds kind of familiar to me. I'll have to check my library (yes, I have quite the book collection).