I like them all except for the fourth one, "Challenges At The Office", it made me cringe.
The first one is okay, "The Future is Open", except in the beginning the Windows screen is fine but the Linux screen is flickering.
I like the second one, "The Origin...", but it might be a bit too abstract. Unless you already know what Linux is you're not going to know what the commercial is about. I think it is pretty cool, but some might find it too serious.
And the last one, "Linux pub", is funny. That might be exactly what is needed. I can imagine a whole line of commercials with that guy in the penguin costume. Will need to be English for the United States though, otherwise you get the impression that Linux is a European thing.
I don't understand the "ego" criticism of calling the system GNU/Linux. No one's demanding that anyone call the system "Stalmanux" are they? It's about ethics/ideology, not about ego. The concern is that "Linux" as the name for the system encourages people to adopt the apathy the Linus and a lot of kernel developers share about issues concerning software freedom. If you care about software freedom and you think people should be able to do whatever they want with the software they use that is on *their* own machines, then call it GNU/Linux. If you opt for this pseudopragmatism instead, just call it whatever you want.
Ultimately, the name isn't the most important thing, is it?
He wasn't saying there is anything wrong with being a "techie", just that it isn't a good thing when only techies can understand an interface. Because, *gasp* most people aren't techies.
But I'm not most people. How does it matter what other people think about the interface?
Exactly. I don't know what this issue is all about, people say that netbooks just aren't powerful enough...for what? Really? They are just a smaller, more portable form of the same computers everyone was using two or three years ago. Someone has been falling for the marketing, or maybe people just refuse to run anything other than Vista/XP on their computers. I run Debian on my EEE and I've been using as my main computer. There are some things I wouldn't do on it, but, you know, computers are quite a bit more powerful than people give them credit for. I run TeX, Emacs, Firefox, TeXmacs and ghostview with no problem.
It just seems sometimes that the only thing slashdotters use their computers is gaming.
Here you've gone from "poor documentation" to "unnecessarily thorough". You're confusing decent documentation with you eccentric taste in documentation. I think you've just become so accustomed to poor technical documentation that you've just grown to like it.
With respect to use as a reference, do you realize that emacs has *five*, clearly labelled, indices? Also, try reading the emacs manual from the info reader within emacs. If you're reading the HTML version, that's why you're citing issues with the "stylesheet". Or at least the info reader at the command line.
Future versions of texinfo will hopefully produce better formatted html files with a decent default stylesheet.
There is a difference, but you're cutting it very thin. Applications that a first-time user finds easy are often (not always, but usually) also easy for experienced users. If you can walk up to something and 'get it' right away, it's often an indication that the designer has really captured the user's mental model for the task. If you find something usable only after months of practice, that application is not usable for most values of the word usable.
Is this really what you believe? That the necessarily ignorant first time user of the application ought to be the limit of what is possible? That users ought not have to learn how to use their computer system?
No, I hope that future systems don't adopt this way of thinking.
Both vi and EMACS seem to have taken the "fuck the users" approach to heart. I suppose I might be of the wrong mindset to operate either application, though the developers could have at the very least taken the time to provide a decent set of documentation for their astonishingly-complex applications.
How can I take the rest of your comment seriously when you are either trolling or speaking out of ignorance (and is there a difference?). Have you even glanced at the Emacs manual? It is quite thorough. You can read online within emacs, read it on the commandline, order a printed book from the FSF or your favorite publisher, or print out your own copy.
There are a lot of weaknesses as far as documentation in the GNU/Linux system; Emacs isn't one of them. You can also read the Emacs Lisp and the Introduction to Emacs Lisp manuals when you want to go further in modifying this flexible application.
Call me back when Linux works with my hardware out of the box (and don't give me any of the normal bullshit; I've tried it on five laptops and two desktops in the last couple years, most of those very recently, and it never Just Works; I can tinker, but I shouldn't be expected to and certainly won't be won as an apostle if I need to).
What is the experience with GNU/Linux when it is pre-installed on the computer by the manufacturer? Have you ever installed MacOS X on an Apple computer? Does the installation procedure beat installing Ubuntu or GNewsense on a LiveCD?
The "Look! nude pictures of [latest chick seen on a hollywood blockbuster] ! If it doesn't open, save and execute" routine is pretty cross-platform. It relies on the Stupidity 0.99995b RC12 Gold API, and it is here to stay.
Which is wrong and has always been wrong by the way. And it's not "open, save, and double click" not "open, save and execute".
When someone double clicks an icon that signifies it's an image file, that action should not execute an arbitrary command on your system. There needs to be some sort of guarentee that the icon chosen to represent a file actually represents the file. There is no guarentee with.desktop files. This is a bug damn it, not a feature!
And you have a strange definition of "stupidity" which goes something like this: "Not paranoid enough about the interface because it is possible for attachments to deceive the user as to their nature." The interface is broken, that's all there is to it. But it doesn't surprise me that your average GNU/Linux user doesn't think that a broken interface is a problem; obviously we're dealing with the stupid user again who hasn't learned the proper degree of paranoia about what the interface depicts to the user.
PS: Just so you know, I'm a huge free software supporter. The great thing about open development is that bugs, when found, often get fixed, but this mentality falls short of the interface and real usability bugs. People, even advanced GNU/Linux gurus, succumb to usability pitfalls, when you're tired or in a hurry or intoxicated or who knows what. I'm not saying we should prevent the user from doing anything harmful to his system (a common strawman on this forum). But it should be obvious to everyone except for this site that if the icon shows that it's a picture file or a spreadsheet or whatever else, that that is what the interface should be. The RIGHT behavior is that the icon representation must reflect truly what is being represented.
I know many here will disagree with this, so be it.
But it isn't about Microsoft, it's about proprietary software. Right now the situation is such that people are forced, whether at work or at home, to use software where you aren't allowed basic rights to the software you use: to use your software in any fashion, to modify it however you want, and to distribute it to whoever who want.
That is the goal, and that is why we need to usurp Microsoft. They are still the number one vendor of software that most people are still forced to use. Other companies are just as bad, but none as dominant.
So if Microsoft is specifically targeting free software, I suggest we fight back.
According to google, it will take 50 years to get there, unless you're talking about a round trip. Personally, I'd just be happy with a space probe. The six years it would take to receive information from the post, and for it to receive commands, would be a pain in the ass though.
Yes I know, and so did my colleagues, that its possible with todays faster conection speed to run a gui over that connection, but why bother when you can already get so much done in a console window?
Well, here's the problem, as I see it. The command line is an expressive interface, but largely limited to character-cell based interfaces. I just think we need to get out of that mode of thought. If you can take the command line out of simple character cells, that would make it even *more* expressive.
For instance, I love using maxima, but it's sad that its limited to a character cell interface. You can run imaxima or wxmaxima, which gives you a full, typeset interface, the best of both worlds, but it's still strange that these are just considered "additions" to the core program, and not a part of the program itself.
It's just silly that we have this unwritten requirement that every program must be usable in a character cell interface, it's like we want everything to be backwards compatible with pre-X interfaces. Why? On modern computing systems, why? You act like it's extra effort to support a graphical interface (not necessarily a WIMP interface), when on modern systems it really isn't.
If I want to delete a file on the Mac, I hit apple delete. We could argue about whether this is better than Windows' deleting files by just hitting delete, but to empty the trash on a Mac, I hit apple shift delete. I don't know of a keyboard shortcut on Windows to empty the Recycle Bin.
But, isn't this because there's really no point to emptying the Recycle Bin/Trash Can? Maybe after you've just deleted an enormous file, but isn't half the point of the Recycle Bin is that it automatically deletes old files once the bin reaches a certain size? In fact, emptying the bin on a regular basis sort of defeats the purpose of having it in the first place.
That's fine, but even if we're just thinking about my own personal values, there are any number of times when I make purchases that I regret or weren't as wise as I'd like. Most of the time I choose based on my short-term indulgances at the expense of my long-term well-being. The whole point of this is just to show how when you really take the principled approach that libertarians do, cracks begin to form in the ideology. Human beings just don't work that way, and all libertarians are left with is this notion on how how human being ought to behave in the economy, as pursuing enlightened self-interest. But libertarians don't grasp how destructive it is to set up a form of society based on how people ought to behave.
And if you're still not convinced, consider this: If everyone behaved the way libertarians think they ought to behave, there would be no use for libertarianism to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
See gnash. Flash is actually an open standard.
I like them all except for the fourth one, "Challenges At The Office", it made me cringe.
The first one is okay, "The Future is Open", except in the beginning the Windows screen is fine but the Linux screen is flickering.
I like the second one, "The Origin...", but it might be a bit too abstract. Unless you already know what Linux is you're not going to know what the commercial is about. I think it is pretty cool, but some might find it too serious.
And the last one, "Linux pub", is funny. That might be exactly what is needed. I can imagine a whole line of commercials with that guy in the penguin costume. Will need to be English for the United States though, otherwise you get the impression that Linux is a European thing.
Well, I think this notion that slashdot has groupthink is accurate, only it's a schizophrenic groupthink with multiple personality disorder.
Do you honestly believe a word of what you just wrote?
Yes.
And it's even less a war than it is a religious movement.
I don't understand the "ego" criticism of calling the system GNU/Linux. No one's demanding that anyone call the system "Stalmanux" are they? It's about ethics/ideology, not about ego. The concern is that "Linux" as the name for the system encourages people to adopt the apathy the Linus and a lot of kernel developers share about issues concerning software freedom. If you care about software freedom and you think people should be able to do whatever they want with the software they use that is on *their* own machines, then call it GNU/Linux. If you opt for this pseudopragmatism instead, just call it whatever you want.
Ultimately, the name isn't the most important thing, is it?
My honest guess, as developer, is that the code produced by these guys that did not get merged into other active projects will just die.
Isn't this a tautology? You're basically just saying that any code that doesn't live will not live (die).
Who's the one sleeping here?
He wasn't saying there is anything wrong with being a "techie", just that it isn't a good thing when only techies can understand an interface. Because, *gasp* most people aren't techies.
But I'm not most people. How does it matter what other people think about the interface?
But yeah, the other guy was overreacting.
And regular laptops are good at calculating nuclear explosions? What does that mean anyway? :)
Exactly. I don't know what this issue is all about, people say that netbooks just aren't powerful enough...for what? Really? They are just a smaller, more portable form of the same computers everyone was using two or three years ago. Someone has been falling for the marketing, or maybe people just refuse to run anything other than Vista/XP on their computers. I run Debian on my EEE and I've been using as my main computer. There are some things I wouldn't do on it, but, you know, computers are quite a bit more powerful than people give them credit for. I run TeX, Emacs, Firefox, TeXmacs and ghostview with no problem.
It just seems sometimes that the only thing slashdotters use their computers is gaming.
Here you've gone from "poor documentation" to "unnecessarily thorough". You're confusing decent documentation with you eccentric taste in documentation. I think you've just become so accustomed to poor technical documentation that you've just grown to like it.
With respect to use as a reference, do you realize that emacs has *five*, clearly labelled, indices? Also, try reading the emacs manual from the info reader within emacs. If you're reading the HTML version, that's why you're citing issues with the "stylesheet". Or at least the info reader at the command line.
Future versions of texinfo will hopefully produce better formatted html files with a decent default stylesheet.
There is a difference, but you're cutting it very thin. Applications that a first-time user finds easy are often (not always, but usually) also easy for experienced users. If you can walk up to something and 'get it' right away, it's often an indication that the designer has really captured the user's mental model for the task. If you find something usable only after months of practice, that application is not usable for most values of the word usable.
Is this really what you believe? That the necessarily ignorant first time user of the application ought to be the limit of what is possible? That users ought not have to learn how to use their computer system?
No, I hope that future systems don't adopt this way of thinking.
Both vi and EMACS seem to have taken the "fuck the users" approach to heart. I suppose I might be of the wrong mindset to operate either application, though the developers could have at the very least taken the time to provide a decent set of documentation for their astonishingly-complex applications.
How can I take the rest of your comment seriously when you are either trolling or speaking out of ignorance (and is there a difference?). Have you even glanced at the Emacs manual? It is quite thorough. You can read online within emacs, read it on the commandline, order a printed book from the FSF or your favorite publisher, or print out your own copy.
There are a lot of weaknesses as far as documentation in the GNU/Linux system; Emacs isn't one of them. You can also read the Emacs Lisp and the Introduction to Emacs Lisp manuals when you want to go further in modifying this flexible application.
Call me back when Linux works with my hardware out of the box (and don't give me any of the normal bullshit; I've tried it on five laptops and two desktops in the last couple years, most of those very recently, and it never Just Works; I can tinker, but I shouldn't be expected to and certainly won't be won as an apostle if I need to).
What is the experience with GNU/Linux when it is pre-installed on the computer by the manufacturer? Have you ever installed MacOS X on an Apple computer? Does the installation procedure beat installing Ubuntu or GNewsense on a LiveCD?
No sarcasm, just questions.
The "Look! nude pictures of [latest chick seen on a hollywood blockbuster] ! If it doesn't open, save and execute" routine is pretty cross-platform. It relies on the Stupidity 0.99995b RC12 Gold API, and it is here to stay.
Which is wrong and has always been wrong by the way. And it's not "open, save, and double click" not "open, save and execute".
When someone double clicks an icon that signifies it's an image file, that action should not execute an arbitrary command on your system. There needs to be some sort of guarentee that the icon chosen to represent a file actually represents the file. There is no guarentee with .desktop files. This is a bug damn it, not a feature!
And you have a strange definition of "stupidity" which goes something like this: "Not paranoid enough about the interface because it is possible for attachments to deceive the user as to their nature." The interface is broken, that's all there is to it. But it doesn't surprise me that your average GNU/Linux user doesn't think that a broken interface is a problem; obviously we're dealing with the stupid user again who hasn't learned the proper degree of paranoia about what the interface depicts to the user.
PS: Just so you know, I'm a huge free software supporter. The great thing about open development is that bugs, when found, often get fixed, but this mentality falls short of the interface and real usability bugs. People, even advanced GNU/Linux gurus, succumb to usability pitfalls, when you're tired or in a hurry or intoxicated or who knows what. I'm not saying we should prevent the user from doing anything harmful to his system (a common strawman on this forum). But it should be obvious to everyone except for this site that if the icon shows that it's a picture file or a spreadsheet or whatever else, that that is what the interface should be. The RIGHT behavior is that the icon representation must reflect truly what is being represented.
Are we suddenly going to see the Red Screen Of Death a lot?
Indeed we will. The only difference is that, in Soviet Russia, the Red Screen of Death crashes into you!
No, I think you need to make DILDO into a hyperlink.
I know many here will disagree with this, so be it.
But it isn't about Microsoft, it's about proprietary software. Right now the situation is such that people are forced, whether at work or at home, to use software where you aren't allowed basic rights to the software you use: to use your software in any fashion, to modify it however you want, and to distribute it to whoever who want.
That is the goal, and that is why we need to usurp Microsoft. They are still the number one vendor of software that most people are still forced to use. Other companies are just as bad, but none as dominant.
So if Microsoft is specifically targeting free software, I suggest we fight back.
Thanks for explaining your calculation. I misunderstood your post.
According to google, it will take 50 years to get there, unless you're talking about a round trip. Personally, I'd just be happy with a space probe. The six years it would take to receive information from the post, and for it to receive commands, would be a pain in the ass though.
I don't usually have these problems. Just use someone else's identity, bank account, gmail etc, and you're set.
Yes I know, and so did my colleagues, that its possible with todays faster conection speed to run a gui over that connection, but why bother when you can already get so much done in a console window?
Well, here's the problem, as I see it. The command line is an expressive interface, but largely limited to character-cell based interfaces. I just think we need to get out of that mode of thought. If you can take the command line out of simple character cells, that would make it even *more* expressive.
For instance, I love using maxima, but it's sad that its limited to a character cell interface. You can run imaxima or wxmaxima, which gives you a full, typeset interface, the best of both worlds, but it's still strange that these are just considered "additions" to the core program, and not a part of the program itself.
It's just silly that we have this unwritten requirement that every program must be usable in a character cell interface, it's like we want everything to be backwards compatible with pre-X interfaces. Why? On modern computing systems, why? You act like it's extra effort to support a graphical interface (not necessarily a WIMP interface), when on modern systems it really isn't.
I somehow doubt that. What were they doing back them? Printing out ASCII porn and war-dialing their local area codes to be like the kids on War Games.
If I want to delete a file on the Mac, I hit apple delete. We could argue about whether this is better than Windows' deleting files by just hitting delete, but to empty the trash on a Mac, I hit apple shift delete. I don't know of a keyboard shortcut on Windows to empty the Recycle Bin.
But, isn't this because there's really no point to emptying the Recycle Bin/Trash Can? Maybe after you've just deleted an enormous file, but isn't half the point of the Recycle Bin is that it automatically deletes old files once the bin reaches a certain size? In fact, emptying the bin on a regular basis sort of defeats the purpose of having it in the first place.
IMHO, but open to other opinions on the matter.
That's fine, but even if we're just thinking about my own personal values, there are any number of times when I make purchases that I regret or weren't as wise as I'd like. Most of the time I choose based on my short-term indulgances at the expense of my long-term well-being. The whole point of this is just to show how when you really take the principled approach that libertarians do, cracks begin to form in the ideology. Human beings just don't work that way, and all libertarians are left with is this notion on how how human being ought to behave in the economy, as pursuing enlightened self-interest. But libertarians don't grasp how destructive it is to set up a form of society based on how people ought to behave.
And if you're still not convinced, consider this: If everyone behaved the way libertarians think they ought to behave, there would be no use for libertarianism to begin with.
YMBNH
YHTTRF, for Christ's sakes!