If you want me to 'grade' you, I'd say you got BIOS, squeaked by on EIDE, missed SMB (it's windows filesharing), and guestimated on toothpick - I *really did* mean the kind you use to clean your teeth with.
SMB, I know I heard that acronym before. Samba, right? As for toothpick, it was a bad-humored joke. That was what the smiley was for.
I have a friend that is more of a SW than HW guy, so no biggie.. but if you really want to be a geek, you gotta know both. And about your ignorance - hrmph. Most people can't fake it more than a few minutes at most.. and if there's ever any doubt, I wing a couple random acronyms by them and see what happens. Since you have a sw background, I'd probably throw GUI, API, OLE and FAT at you.:)
I like to think that my ignorance is due to inexperience. I use the family computer and my dad tells me not to download anything, let along experiment much (not that I don't deserve it, I have switched mouse drivers, replaced io.sys, and upped the resolution past what the video card could handle; all by accident... this is before I discovered GNU/Linux).
GUI - graphical user interface API - application-program interface OLE - object linking and embedding FAT - file allocation table
These acronyms are kind of easy though. I'll add these to prove that I am worthy:
Posix - common system calls on various OSs OpenGL - 2D/3D graphics API Corba - object-oriented networkable API Recursion - function that eventually calls itself Vector - two numbers that define a line from an origin Perspective Projection - Method for 3D rendering
Of course if you ask me what a telnet port is, I'll just give you a blank stare.
On your excuses part, formal education probably won't do you much good until college -- it's just a given. Best bets are to find semi-current books ( less than 3 years old ), and track down a few local gurus to help you out on the grey areas. QBASIC isn't programming *g*, and it's quite obvious you're a high school student... I'd guess frosh/sophomore. You're in the ballpark as far as your computer knowledge, I wouldn't fault yourself too much.. it sounds like you live somewhere that's still in the technological dark ages...
Well, I taught myself C from a book made in '94. QBASIC is as close I am going to get to programming experience. And that is mostly in games and my awkward attempts at 3D programming (from scratch). Obvious I am in high school, eh? Hmmm. I am actually a junior though.
As for me having a touch of 'elitism', you're probably right. I have a strong aversion to stupid people - esp. ones that ask you the same questions over and over again instead of asking you once, clearing up any ambiguities they may have about the answer, and moving on. I don't like people who waste my time - I only got 24 hours each day to do something productive, and spending a couple hours of it helping some retard figure out which side up to put the floppy into the drive doen't fit that definition.
That's all right, I think. It seems to be natural, I've done it too: even though I don't know much to be elitist about;) But I probably need to be more patient than most, I got to help my mom (who still treats Works like typewriter).
And then a friend of my mine starts his own web page using some web-based interface. And I get all upset because he puts up a web page without learning anything. He says he wants to learn HTML for the 'advanced features' but I don't think he has enough patience to learn the simply things first.
Oh, and I think that high schools should have a *required* computer literacy courses that actually go in to file management, system maintenance, and some basic vocab to know what the System Requirements mean!
Your elitism is showing, friend. I also fear that I am one of your 'geek posers'. Even though I have never considered myself a hacker by any means, I am still trying to learn...
Okay, let see if I pass your test:
BIOS: check, firmware that is required for your machine to boot the operating system or boot manager along with other functions.
EIDE: kind of check, some manipulation of an IDE hard drive?
PLL: nope, never heard of it except I think I recognize the acronym.
SMB: oh gee, I should know this one... symetric multi-tasking? No, that can't be it...
VAX: from the context, it is probably a computer or perhaps an Operating Systrem (some brand of Unix?)
HDD: check, hard drive, duh.
SCSI: check, a type of hard drive with somewhat better performance
vi: check, VIsual editor on all Unix systems
toothpick: nope, never heard of this one before, maybe a brand of monitor?:)
Well, it looks like I failed your test. Unlike a lot of people, I am rather open about my ignorance.
Now for my excuses:
I am a software person, more interested in higher-level things like graphics, AI, user-interfaces, ect. Hardware I don't take a lot of time to experiment with.
No formal education in these matters. No money for books. So that basicly causes me scrounging for books at our limited library (many books about AppleSoft BASIC there) and looking for tutorials on the internet (which is quite limited, if you have done it, you know what I mean).
I have done quite a bit QBASIC programming, so if you consider that programming, I've done it
Still a lowly high school student. No real computer courses other than CAD and business technology (yep, you guessed it, MSOffice. Mr Paperclip is kind of cool until he pops up to help you.)
Well, there you go. I am naked before the slashdot audience. And I don't think I am alone here.
Let me see, what stereotype does that make me. I used to think I was a geek or nerd but now that I am a 'geek poser', I must reconsider. How about power user. There we go, much better.
Well, one day some programmer will come up with a program that writes programs and then programmming will become obsolete. And it will happen too. The programmer will know what the result would be, but does it anyway because he thought that it would be cool and that is just the way we are.
Now if you get technical, I can imagine many ways where this happens already but I am thinking artificial intelligence and neural-nets and stuff like that so that a programmer wouldn't be happening.
But really, Its? What is wrong with somwthing more pronouncable like iron-clads or smoothies? Ah well, I can't imagine calling someone a suit anytime soon either.
Truth is a weak foundation. Mathematics is on no firmer ground than evolution. Godel and Tarski showed that mathematics isn't about truth, it's about logical relationships between statements. Your system is never any better than your axioms, and no finite set of axioms can ever suffice.
Actually they can according to an extremely amuaterish and ignorant theory I have. I figure that if there are a finite number of axioms in the universe and that truth does exist, then all axioms must be defined recursively. Think of the dictionary. Every word must be defined using another word in the dictionary. Look up the word 'the' once and see how often the word 'the' appears in it's own definition. 'The' is an extreme case. Logic concludes that all words in the dictionary must be defined recursivly.
I also think that the more axioms there are, the more fully the axioms are defined. Just like the dictionary. If there was only one word in the universe, the dictionary wouldn't be very usefull. Two words is a little better. A hundred words are much better and start to yeild meaningful definitions. So on and so on.
Hmmm. I wonder if someone has already thought of this. Probably, because I am not very smart.
A friend of mine and I was having debate about evolution/creationism and he was giving me all these arguments against evolution that he heard from some guy. The problem was, the arguments weren't about evolution. He was telling me about how the evolutionists believe that moon was getting closer to the earth and how the oceans show signs of the great floods and etc. etc.
What many creationists don't understand is that when you disprove a part of a theory, the theory adapts to take in the new evidence. I would like to see the Bible be that flexible.
I like to consider myself open-minded. That means I treat the possible as if it could be true, and I treat the impossible as if it is possible. Now let me define some words:
know - if you know something, there is no doubt that it is true, and no doubt for anyone else that it is true unless they are ignorant.
believe - if you believe something, that means that out of a series of possibilities, what you believe is what you think is correct.
Now why did I just define these things? Well I find it is important because these things often confused when talking about religion.
Alright now. I believe in evolution. I believe in evolution because of all the evidence we know we know.
Now, you can believe in creationism, but you cannot know that it is true unless you were there when it happened.
The reason people believe in creationism is because either they believe that the Bible is correct on the beginning of life on Earth and they interpret the Bible strictly, or because of some form of divine truth.
In my opinion, the creationism/evolution controversy is just like when Galileo disproved the Geo-centric theory (that all the planets go revolve around the Earth) which was what the Church believed, except the Church no longer has the power to execute people with theories they don't believe in.
I would like to say that it is indeed possible that the way that God created life on our planet may be very similar to evolution theory, only much much faster. If I recall correctly in Genesis, God created fish, then birds, then mammals, and lastly, man. That is the same order of things that evolutionists believe, I think. I am just trying to say, being open-minded and all, that creationism and evolution don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Of course the Bible says that the earth was here before the sun, which goes against nebular theory (that the sun and planets were created in a vast cloud of gas and dust). Also that the stars were created after the earth which is contrary to the Big Bang Theory. But this is a different argument.
Note before I get flamed: Don't get to critical of what I say. I confess I do not have a bible in front of me nor do I have papers about Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I am going by a layman's understanding of both. Don't expect me to put in research for just mere Slashdot comment. If you know better, tell us, then I won't make the same mistake twice. Thank You.
I have to agree that the critique has almost nothing to do with "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" but I think the paper is enlightening in it's own right. By reading it, I feel that a lot of free software projects can avaoid failing.
Also, I think a lot of people need to insert the following into thier own startup script:
#undefine COMMUNISM == BAD
Okay, call it pseudo-C, but you get the idea.
The red scare is over folks. And with people like McCarthy able to get in power, I think our system is far from perfect. I am not very political but I do know that talking about things you don't understand is among the worst of evils, more evil than communism supposedly is.
My personal quirps about CatB is that it doesn't account for when OSS fails. And the the original critique explained this expertly. While ESR was using Linux development as his model, he didn't consider that Linux is atypical as such a project.
I many times go to links of abandoned web sites of abandoned OSS projects, enough for the pessimism in me creeps some. I think for the next paper in ESR's series, he should examine why OSS fails and how to avoid this. Such a work would be enlightening to us all.
There we go. That is a good point! Whenever someone describes the Free Software Movement as communist, email him/her and tell them that so is science, that will shut him up enough to make him think.
The is a great critism. I, myself, have often wondered about the cases where the OSS development model doesn' work. The reasons are usually often and ignored, until now.
Also, I really hate the whole Press thing OSS supporters have need doing. "Fight for the dream, not the competition." Say it. Remember it. Eat it.
Really though, with as many toolkits as GNU systems seem to require, it makes sense to abstract the interface as much as possible with any major application. Instead of you application asking for a save dialogue box, it should ask for a filename. If you think about it, there are many ways to get a filename though only one way to open a dialogue box. These abstractions could be implemented using any GUI toolkit or perhaps a text interface. If I am not mistaken, Berlin is doing something like this.
Geese you people. Certianly the traditional Unix printing system works great for people like us who only occasionally print technical manuals or perhaps source code. I know I have printed a LaTeX document or two for school. But have you ever tried printing a screenshot? Don't. I did once and the results were terrible.
CUPS uses filters for various filetypes. So hopefully I can get better quality for massive graphics than I can with postscript which basically vector-based from what I understand.
If CUPS is better and the license is right, then it should become the standard for GNU systems.
I am not sure about the Internet Printing thing. Isn't that what Xerox is doing? I guess it would be neat to print my file at my Uncle's house... kind of like faxing, huh?
What troubles me the most about the Open Source Movement is that their focus seems to be to get businesses to open their code. While it seems to be a good motive but I need to ask, at what cost? The movement seems to marketing the Open Source Development to businesses. Open Source makes sense in a lot of cases but I doubt that this is always so. And now a new liscense? How far will the movement go to cater to businesses? Do we need even need businesses?
That last question is the entire point of this response. It seems to me that the businesses that would benefit the most from Opensource software is the large businesses. I make this statement from the evidence, look who is doing Open Source now: Corel, IBM, AOL(sorta), etc. Where is Ma and Pa's Software Company? Maybe small businesses have already been opening their software but the advantages seem to be exponentially less. One of the assumptions of the Open Source development model is widespread distribution. Surely Corel and IBM will get plenty of users but what about Ma and Pa's? Be? Opera?
Now for Part B of my argument. The biggest reason I use free software is that I no longer need to be spoon-fed by big businesses. It is nice. I can update when I want, check the progress of various software packages, and and recompile if I want. This is freedom people. I have grown tired waiting for Press Releases and exlusive Beta software to find out what is happening with the software I used to use in Windows Land. Now I can get a good idea by going to mailing list archives or web forums. Heck, I can even ask someone if I was really interested. But most of all, there is no need for buzzword features to get people to upgrade. Next buzzword: Open Source.
The effort the Open Source Movement has done to cater to big businesses really scares me. I still say we don't need to be spoon-fed by businesses.
Unix shells are much easier to use than GUI interfaces for all Unix shells are much easier to use than GUI interfaces for all but the most simple operations.
I was ready to agree with you until I recalled what most people do with computers: Web Browseing, E-mail, Word Processing, Printing, Spreadsheets, and perhaps some kind of checking program. I also have a friend who makes his own Web Page on the internet using some Page wizard thing on Trident.
I am already to agree with you. Just someone tell me how the command-line would help with the above task.
Well, Gnome's mini-commander is quite a bit better than what discribed, which sound a lot like Windows Run command on the Start button. Mini-Commander has autocompletion and fits in your panel. If you add a prefix with a colon, you can put output in an xterm, open a URL in Lynx or netscape, or whatever else you want.
Hoax or not, it does bring up a good issue. I used to be a Chrisitian but I never thought that God would care what I did on my computer. I think it seems plausable that God would overlook the creations of His creations. The commandments say "Thou shall not kill" but does that include inanimate processes? What if we develop artificial intelligence? Would it be immoral to kill such a process?
And is it sin to view porn on the internet? Is that akin to adultery for those who are married? And is saying His name in vain into xterm wrong? what if you said it in a shell script with an infinite loop?
Is worshipping RMS^H^H^HUnix against the First Commandment?
I am mostly serious about this. I have never thought that religion and computers have anything to do with each other. But you never know. Anyone know of a way to sin using a computer?
Whatever the answer, the Ten Commandments are long overdue for a revision.
Note: I am not trying to be sacro-religious either. I don't mean to offend anyone, it is just my curiousity gets the best of me.
I always liked Dvorak and he makes a really good point here. This isn't your run-of-the-mill editorial here. I have Dvorak extraordinarily perceptive and in this case, he has done some research. And he made an important point here, even if it is one you didn't want to hear.
Linux isn't great for all things. I fear that Windows 2000 will replace a lot of Linux servers in the future. So prepare to Wave 2 when Linux takes the desktop.
Desktop? Yes. There are far more hackers with desktop machines than with server class machines to develop software with. So the desktop is natural. And I really doubt Microsoft will be able to make the convergance between NT and Windows/DOS systems smoothly enough for the regular user. And by then GNU systems will be able to do anything Windows can do now, and better!
Notice I said GNU systems. In competition against propietary software, I really doubt Linux based GNU systems hold all the cards. Come on guys! we have 2 or 3 other very capable allies for the free kernal, why exclude them simply because they don't have the public eye? Software is much better at cooperating than competing, so why compete if you don't have to!
I was wondering, of all the things Gnome does well, what do you think separates Gnome from from everything out there? Why do you think someone should use Gnome as their Unix desktop enviroment?
I think you just pointed indirectly to the heart of these rivalries. The question is, how does free software compete? It can't. If Gnome is competing with KDE or vice versa, I think they will feel bad if they win and ignore it if they loose. Because there is no win/loose in the free software. Software is much better at cooperating than competing, as the tendancy for software monopolies shows.
So I tell you this, no matter what is tried, neither KDE nor Gnome can loose.
And this isn't about Unix Desktops but it is about free software in general. Software is better when it cooperates. Let us be friends then.
I think his comment deserves more thought than that. I've noticed that Gnome goes slower as well but I have no idea how I would benchmark it. The truth is, Gnome *is* slower. There is little doubting it because many people have complained about it. I can testify to two setups that were uncommonly slow (ever try Gnome on a 486? Don't).
I use Red Hat 6.0 with some updated binaries if you must know.
(Just because I don't provide benchmarks doesn't make the problem go away. I kind of says you are trying to ignore the problem.)
I am looking forward to Gnome 1.50 which I hope will top the competition.
I don't know what you call the free software movement. The problem with labeling it as an -ism is that there are too many assumptions made with the various -isms. So to avoid obvious bias, let's not call the free software movement any -ism, okay?
But another question I have is if the free software movement should be labeled as an -ism? I mean it is arguable at best to describe the free software movement an economic system. And I truly doubt it is political.
Software is a unique product where there is infinite supply and the total cost is research and development. So it is basicly create once copy forever. I don't think there is an economic system that deals with this. Most economic systems assume there is finite supply and sale is because of necessity. If you can't copy it freely you need to charge for it because not everyone can own the same product at once.
I think that software should developed by people who get paid by the government because the software benefits everyone else.
Yes. My thoughts exactly. I beleive that as modem connections speed up with things like cable modems, we will see a lot of people renting apps that aren't even on their own machine. I wouldn't doubt that a lot of corporations are planning this already.
I also beleive that free software will be able to curve this trend that these corporations are wanting. I still think it would be cool to be running programs on an internet servor, but I want freedom to that software, not restrictions.
I can see a number of journalists praising such an endeaver: "They upgrade the software for you so you don't need to undergo the complicated upgrade process!" Of cource if this happens, the companies would experience no real need to make better releases of software. Heck, if people need to pay just to access their software, why should they spend any money on R&D?
This is really really bad and I praise Richard Stallman for the free software movement. I know at least I am not going to be renting any software anytime soon.
What better way to make the most secure Operating System than to test a beta openly against being cracked! And trust me, they have no problem holding back the release of Windows 2000 until *every problem is fixed*. They might just do it this time; creating a really good operating system.
There will always be problems, of course. But what they are fixing happen to be what Linux has been known to be good at. First speed with the benchmarking fiasco. And now security. Linux has to be a big threat in their eyes. I wonder what they are going to come up with next?
I don't think Linux is going to become more than a cheap viable alternative as a servor OS for some time. I am looking forward to what I like to call "wave 2" when Linux or another free and open OS takes not the servor, but the desktop.
Slashdot Mirror
I was never any good at this whole celebrity thing, even in this bailiwick.
--
SMB, I know I heard that acronym before. Samba, right? As for toothpick, it was a bad-humored joke. That was what the smiley was for.
I have a friend that is more of a SW than HW guy, so no biggie.. but if you really want to be a geek, you gotta know both. And about your ignorance - hrmph. Most people can't fake it more than a few minutes at most.. and if there's ever any doubt, I wing a couple random acronyms by them and see what happens. Since you have a sw background, I'd probably throw GUI, API, OLE and FAT at you.
I like to think that my ignorance is due to inexperience. I use the family computer and my dad tells me not to download anything, let along experiment much (not that I don't deserve it, I have switched mouse drivers, replaced io.sys, and upped the resolution past what the video card could handle; all by accident... this is before I discovered GNU/Linux).
GUI - graphical user interface
API - application-program interface
OLE - object linking and embedding
FAT - file allocation table
These acronyms are kind of easy though. I'll add these to prove that I am worthy:
Posix - common system calls on various OSs
OpenGL - 2D/3D graphics API
Corba - object-oriented networkable API
Recursion - function that eventually calls itself
Vector - two numbers that define a line from an origin
Perspective Projection - Method for 3D rendering
Of course if you ask me what a telnet port is, I'll just give you a blank stare.
On your excuses part, formal education probably won't do you much good until college -- it's just a given. Best bets are to find semi-current books ( less than 3 years old ), and track down a few local gurus to help you out on the grey areas. QBASIC isn't programming *g*, and it's quite obvious you're a high school student... I'd guess frosh/sophomore. You're in the ballpark as far as your computer knowledge, I wouldn't fault yourself too much.. it sounds like you live somewhere that's still in the technological dark ages...
Well, I taught myself C from a book made in '94. QBASIC is as close I am going to get to programming experience. And that is mostly in games and my awkward attempts at 3D programming (from scratch). Obvious I am in high school, eh? Hmmm. I am actually a junior though.
As for me having a touch of 'elitism', you're probably right. I have a strong aversion to stupid people - esp. ones that ask you the same questions over and over again instead of asking you once, clearing up any ambiguities they may have about the answer, and moving on. I don't like people who waste my time - I only got 24 hours each day to do something productive, and spending a couple hours of it helping some retard figure out which side up to put the floppy into the drive doen't fit that definition.
That's all right, I think. It seems to be natural, I've done it too: even though I don't know much to be elitist about
And then a friend of my mine starts his own web page using some web-based interface. And I get all upset because he puts up a web page without learning anything. He says he wants to learn HTML for the 'advanced features' but I don't think he has enough patience to learn the simply things first.
Oh, and I think that high schools should have a *required* computer literacy courses that actually go in to file management, system maintenance, and some basic vocab to know what the System Requirements mean!
Oh well.
--
Okay, let see if I pass your test:
BIOS: check, firmware that is required for your machine to boot the operating system or boot manager along with other functions.
EIDE: kind of check, some manipulation of an IDE hard drive?
PLL: nope, never heard of it except I think I recognize the acronym.
SMB: oh gee, I should know this one... symetric multi-tasking? No, that can't be it...
VAX: from the context, it is probably a computer or perhaps an Operating Systrem (some brand of Unix?)
HDD: check, hard drive, duh.
SCSI: check, a type of hard drive with somewhat better performance
vi: check, VIsual editor on all Unix systems
toothpick: nope, never heard of this one before, maybe a brand of monitor?
Well, it looks like I failed your test. Unlike a lot of people, I am rather open about my ignorance.
Now for my excuses:
Well, there you go. I am naked before the slashdot audience. And I don't think I am alone here.
Let me see, what stereotype does that make me. I used to think I was a geek or nerd but now that I am a 'geek poser', I must reconsider. How about power user. There we go, much better.
--
Now if you get technical, I can imagine many ways where this happens already but I am thinking artificial intelligence and neural-nets and stuff like that so that a programmer wouldn't be happening.
But really, Its? What is wrong with somwthing more pronouncable like iron-clads or smoothies? Ah well, I can't imagine calling someone a suit anytime soon either.
--
Actually they can according to an extremely amuaterish and ignorant theory I have. I figure that if there are a finite number of axioms in the universe and that truth does exist, then all axioms must be defined recursively. Think of the dictionary. Every word must be defined using another word in the dictionary. Look up the word 'the' once and see how often the word 'the' appears in it's own definition. 'The' is an extreme case. Logic concludes that all words in the dictionary must be defined recursivly.
I also think that the more axioms there are, the more fully the axioms are defined. Just like the dictionary. If there was only one word in the universe, the dictionary wouldn't be very usefull. Two words is a little better. A hundred words are much better and start to yeild meaningful definitions. So on and so on.
Hmmm. I wonder if someone has already thought of this. Probably, because I am not very smart.
klh@sedona.net
--
What many creationists don't understand is that when you disprove a part of a theory, the theory adapts to take in the new evidence. I would like to see the Bible be that flexible.
--
know - if you know something, there is no doubt that it is true, and no doubt for anyone else that it is true unless they are ignorant.
believe - if you believe something, that means that out of a series of possibilities, what you believe is what you think is correct.
Now why did I just define these things? Well I find it is important because these things often confused when talking about religion.
Alright now. I believe in evolution. I believe in evolution because of all the evidence we know we know.
Now, you can believe in creationism, but you cannot know that it is true unless you were there when it happened.
The reason people believe in creationism is because either they believe that the Bible is correct on the beginning of life on Earth and they interpret the Bible strictly, or because of some form of divine truth.
In my opinion, the creationism/evolution controversy is just like when Galileo disproved the Geo-centric theory (that all the planets go revolve around the Earth) which was what the Church believed, except the Church no longer has the power to execute people with theories they don't believe in.
I would like to say that it is indeed possible that the way that God created life on our planet may be very similar to evolution theory, only much much faster. If I recall correctly in Genesis, God created fish, then birds, then mammals, and lastly, man. That is the same order of things that evolutionists believe, I think. I am just trying to say, being open-minded and all, that creationism and evolution don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Of course the Bible says that the earth was here before the sun, which goes against nebular theory (that the sun and planets were created in a vast cloud of gas and dust). Also that the stars were created after the earth which is contrary to the Big Bang Theory. But this is a different argument.
Note before I get flamed: Don't get to critical of what I say. I confess I do not have a bible in front of me nor do I have papers about Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I am going by a layman's understanding of both. Don't expect me to put in research for just mere Slashdot comment. If you know better, tell us, then I won't make the same mistake twice. Thank You.
--
I guess I need to brush up on my C. I was hoping no one would notice by the words Pseudo-C...
--
Also, I think a lot of people need to insert the following into thier own startup script:
#undefine COMMUNISM == BAD
Okay, call it pseudo-C, but you get the idea.
The red scare is over folks. And with people like McCarthy able to get in power, I think our system is far from perfect. I am not very political but I do know that talking about things you don't understand is among the worst of evils, more evil than communism supposedly is.
My personal quirps about CatB is that it doesn't account for when OSS fails. And the the original critique explained this expertly. While ESR was using Linux development as his model, he didn't consider that Linux is atypical as such a project.
I many times go to links of abandoned web sites of abandoned OSS projects, enough for the pessimism in me creeps some. I think for the next paper in ESR's series, he should examine why OSS fails and how to avoid this. Such a work would be enlightening to us all.
--
The is a great critism. I, myself, have often wondered about the cases where the OSS development model doesn' work. The reasons are usually often and ignored, until now.
Also, I really hate the whole Press thing OSS supporters have need doing. "Fight for the dream, not the competition." Say it. Remember it. Eat it.
--
Or a bonobo componet of the Gnome minesweeper game. Oh wait, they already did that.
More worthwhile things to do indeed!
--
--
CUPS uses filters for various filetypes. So hopefully I can get better quality for massive graphics than I can with postscript which basically vector-based from what I understand.
If CUPS is better and the license is right, then it should become the standard for GNU systems.
I am not sure about the Internet Printing thing. Isn't that what Xerox is doing? I guess it would be neat to print my file at my Uncle's house... kind of like faxing, huh?
The internet is making everything weird.
--
That last question is the entire point of this response. It seems to me that the businesses that would benefit the most from Opensource software is the large businesses. I make this statement from the evidence, look who is doing Open Source now: Corel, IBM, AOL(sorta), etc. Where is Ma and Pa's Software Company? Maybe small businesses have already been opening their software but the advantages seem to be exponentially less. One of the assumptions of the Open Source development model is widespread distribution. Surely Corel and IBM will get plenty of users but what about Ma and Pa's? Be? Opera?
Now for Part B of my argument. The biggest reason I use free software is that I no longer need to be spoon-fed by big businesses. It is nice. I can update when I want, check the progress of various software packages, and and recompile if I want. This is freedom people. I have grown tired waiting for Press Releases and exlusive Beta software to find out what is happening with the software I used to use in Windows Land. Now I can get a good idea by going to mailing list archives or web forums. Heck, I can even ask someone if I was really interested. But most of all, there is no need for buzzword features to get people to upgrade. Next buzzword: Open Source.
The effort the Open Source Movement has done to cater to big businesses really scares me. I still say we don't need to be spoon-fed by businesses.
--
I was ready to agree with you until I recalled what most people do with computers: Web Browseing, E-mail, Word Processing, Printing, Spreadsheets, and perhaps some kind of checking program. I also have a friend who makes his own Web Page on the internet using some Page wizard thing on Trident.
I am already to agree with you. Just someone tell me how the command-line would help with the above task.
--
--
And is it sin to view porn on the internet? Is that akin to adultery for those who are married? And is saying His name in vain into xterm wrong? what if you said it in a shell script with an infinite loop?
Is worshipping RMS^H^H^HUnix against the First Commandment?
I am mostly serious about this. I have never thought that religion and computers have anything to do with each other. But you never know. Anyone know of a way to sin using a computer?
Whatever the answer, the Ten Commandments are long overdue for a revision.
Note: I am not trying to be sacro-religious either. I don't mean to offend anyone, it is just my curiousity gets the best of me.
--
--
Linux isn't great for all things. I fear that Windows 2000 will replace a lot of Linux servers in the future. So prepare to Wave 2 when Linux takes the desktop.
Desktop? Yes. There are far more hackers with desktop machines than with server class machines to develop software with. So the desktop is natural. And I really doubt Microsoft will be able to make the convergance between NT and Windows/DOS systems smoothly enough for the regular user. And by then GNU systems will be able to do anything Windows can do now, and better!
Notice I said GNU systems. In competition against propietary software, I really doubt Linux based GNU systems hold all the cards. Come on guys! we have 2 or 3 other very capable allies for the free kernal, why exclude them simply because they don't have the public eye? Software is much better at cooperating than competing, so why compete if you don't have to!
--
I was wondering, of all the things Gnome does well, what do you think separates Gnome from from everything out there? Why do you think someone should use Gnome as their Unix desktop enviroment?
Thanks for your time,
Kevin Holmes
"extrasolar"
klh@sedona.net
--
So I tell you this, no matter what is tried, neither KDE nor Gnome can loose.
And this isn't about Unix Desktops but it is about free software in general. Software is better when it cooperates. Let us be friends then.
--
I use Red Hat 6.0 with some updated binaries if you must know.
(Just because I don't provide benchmarks doesn't make the problem go away. I kind of says you are trying to ignore the problem.)
I am looking forward to Gnome 1.50 which I hope will top the competition.
--
But another question I have is if the free software movement should be labeled as an -ism? I mean it is arguable at best to describe the free software movement an economic system. And I truly doubt it is political.
Software is a unique product where there is infinite supply and the total cost is research and development. So it is basicly create once copy forever. I don't think there is an economic system that deals with this. Most economic systems assume there is finite supply and sale is because of necessity. If you can't copy it freely you need to charge for it because not everyone can own the same product at once.
I think that software should developed by people who get paid by the government because the software benefits everyone else.
--
I also beleive that free software will be able to curve this trend that these corporations are wanting. I still think it would be cool to be running programs on an internet servor, but I want freedom to that software, not restrictions.
I can see a number of journalists praising such an endeaver: "They upgrade the software for you so you don't need to undergo the complicated upgrade process!" Of cource if this happens, the companies would experience no real need to make better releases of software. Heck, if people need to pay just to access their software, why should they spend any money on R&D?
This is really really bad and I praise Richard Stallman for the free software movement. I know at least I am not going to be renting any software anytime soon.
--
There will always be problems, of course. But what they are fixing happen to be what Linux has been known to be good at. First speed with the benchmarking fiasco. And now security. Linux has to be a big threat in their eyes. I wonder what they are going to come up with next?
I don't think Linux is going to become more than a cheap viable alternative as a servor OS for some time. I am looking forward to what I like to call "wave 2" when Linux or another free and open OS takes not the servor, but the desktop.
Mark my words.
--