Probably because religion - just like many other things - are somewhat orthogonal to happiness. Being religious does not make you more or less likely to be happy.
The article mentioned that people who are more social tend to be more happy. Many religious groups are very socially active. If one is a loner, who has a hard time making new friends, the right religious group is just the ticket. (I'm an atheist myself, so I can't play:P)
But I've noticed that some of the churches around me, in addition to bible study classes, maintain a a very active social calendar for all ages. These churches get it. You are getting people involved, making friends, and keeping the group all together to hinder outside influences from evil people like me.
So, in summary, I think religion can make a person more happy.
From the article:
Although it was originally thought pterosaurs merely glided, it is now believed they flapped their wings for powered flight. "If they were able to use a frog-like jump, that would have given them an extra bit of lift,"
Now, from where do they make these "frog-like" jumps? Some cliffs here and there, I suppose. But I'm picturing these monster sized birds climbing in the trees.
Or another comparison to modern birds: Where do they build their nests? Couldn't use simple staw, they'd need some serious lumber.
Or "24-1"? I think that sort of math is more fitting for a Windows95 thread, wouldn't you agree?
I recall buying a Win95 preinstalled box ASAP. I then reverted that box to a Win3.11/OS2 combo... in case anyone cares:P Just to brag, was merrily using linux at the time on my primary computer. Now I don't use linux except when I have to. How times have changed )-:
Problem is, I'm not interested in commerce, I want to listen to quality music.
I don't give a hoot about "quality" music:) I like gritty bootlegged concerts. If a top 40 act can put on a good live show, so be it. To date, off hand, I can't think of any.
So now there are these great specialized internet radio's with music I never heard before.
Now we're talkin'. I purchase maybe a CD a month. Since the dawn of napster, I have only purchased one top 40 cd -- and that was the recent Foo Fighters. Everything else I found either via napster/livewire (in the "old days"), or, in recent years, stuff I found via internet radio and via artist web pages sent to me by alert fans. The variety out there is just incredible!
I wonder how music fans survived pre-internet. I'd think one would have to move to a big city and hit lots of live shows. Now, I can live in the middle of nowhere, and hear all those great acts. Added bonus have having access to music from around the world. Can download multiple concerts from my favorite bands, purchase a single or two for bands that I have style I don't like but accidentally put out a groovy song that would never make the radio, etc etc etc.
Music and the internet go together just perfectly.
Bullshit. A lot of imams and others have spoken out against it. It just doesn't get the same airplay. You do a Google News search and you'll see many articles pointing out a recent instance. But many Muslim organizations in the US and elsewhere have spoken out against it.
As a muslim, I call bullshit:)
The imams speaking out against terrorism have very little ground to stand on. While they may cite shariah regarding war needing to be fought according to certain rules, there is more than enough ahadith and ayat in the Quran to support violence. You can't read garbage like this and come away feeling all warm and fuzzy.
Off hand I know of two American muslims who took a stance against violence in Islam pre-911, and they were assisinated. (The murders are still bragged about to this day with all sorts of "all thanks to Allah".) It's scarey stuff.
While I have no more tolerance for xians and their illogical take on religion, if you can suffer through the propoganda, The online book "Prophet of Doom" quite nicely captures the essence of Islam. Available here: Prophet of Doom
I built a yahoo toolbar long ago. I live on the Yahoo family of sites:P
So, I pulled my "Bookmarks Toolbar Folder" up along side the menus, so I have:
File... Help | []My Yahoo []Mail []Yahoo (drop down folder)...
I've recently been using del.icio.us for quickly saving bookmarks that can be accessed from other computers.
Of couse, yahoo seach is the default search tucked nicely along the address bar.
You have everything you need all nicely scrunched up on top, so you can also use tabs without cutting into screen space.
To make a short story long -- everything the Yahoo Toolbar offers, can be done with a default install of FireFox and some simple rearranging of existing toolbar locations. And, in my opinion, the DIY method produces a better result.
(honestly just posting because it's been months, maybe years, since I've written anything here:P)
When I read SCO's original complaint, it seemed to me that SCO was publically talking about copyright but in court was trying to argue that IBM had not played fair wrt. Monterey.>/P>
I am glad you mentioned Monterey. Must say I didn't read all the dribble written, just searched for that key word after a few posts. Montery is very important. I recall when the idea was introduced as I'm sure most/. readers will pretend. Companies doing these joint things are scarey, yet, the practice continues.
I'm still getting MyDoom.o emails. It spread like wildfire inside the company I work at.... This is rhetorical and wishful: when are we going to get some anti-virus software that protects us before an outbreak?
(please don't say don't run Windows, it is realistic but not realistic today right here)
When you say, "don't run Windows", do you mean on the mail server? Off the top of my head, I know of this procmail tweak which can do wonders to stop new virus type threats when set up wisely. I've seen it put to good use at a few places that use Windows desktops. I would imagine that if one was a bit clever, there should be a similar solution on Windows servers also.
"IBM" is a company...
some commissioned sales people aren't pushing Linux is no surprise, but it doesn't mean IBM as a whole doesn't get it.
Ok. For simplicity sake I'll agree with you. If comissioned sales do better with linux than with AIX et al, does that not agree with my concept that they are in it for the money? If said sales people do better with closed source, do you think IBM as a corp would not push closed source more? Either way I win. Maybe I didn't make it clear enough in my original post, but it's about the money. I see the heart and soul of open source being the printer driver of RMS lore. It's GREAT that IBM can make some money selling open source! But, at the end of the day, if you have a problem you can't fix, or an idea you can't implement because of closed source, the point is mute. (Or for the simple minded, it is moo, be that you can give it to a cow.) IBM is pushing Linux because they can make money. But I promise they will push something else 5, 10, 20 years from now if open source isn't profitable -- that is their obligation to the stock holders.
I guess I'm coming off as a real jerk. But my point is that open source gives the end user control. Your mind should not be manipulated by whether or not open source is backed by big corps. (And I am not even implying that the author of the above post was swayed into the open source concept because of major backing.) My fear is that some people will abondon the free software concept once a key player or two pull out.
Open source gives any company, regardless of size or "MVP" status, the freedom to innovate, create, fix, and resolve. Open source gives indivduals (without big bucks) the ability to learn by doing. These are two key points that closed source can not touch. These are two areas that scare the heck out of many companies currently in power or who want power. IBM has power, but they want to break free of the MSFT current and potential future domination.
To reiterate, IBM supporting Linux is good. To live by IBM support of Linux is bad. And, again, I am not implying that the poster is an IBM slave, I jsut want to point out that there is more to open source than Big Company selling open source.
In contrast, IBM fully understands what open source is all about, and manages to deal with the concept in an intelligent manner, instead of trying to make compromises and deal with half measures.
I agree with the idea that MSFT allowing those deemed "MVP" worthy to view the source code is meaningless. But I doubt IBM understands open source. They are selling open source stuff because they make money doing so. If it conflicts with their other software, they will push closed source. And they will push it hard to the detriment of open source. Anybody have the link handy for the statements from HP? HP is trying to sell linux servers to existing IBM AIX customers, and IBM is alleged to bad mouth linux something fierce. While I can't back the claims of HP, I see no reason to believe that IBM is a saint of open source. When IBM goes 100% GPL, then I will trust them. The partial backing of IBM is a GoodThing, but I don't think the people of importance at IBM really "understand" open source.
Insert some random badmouthing of MSFT backed by personal experience.
And, yes, some OSS projects do this very well. Mozilla products (Firefox, etc.) are very well designed. There are minor usability flaws, but nothing that isn't easy to figure out.
This reply probably should go under a different thread, but I couldn't find quite the right place:P
People are talking about letting users design the UI. But Mozilla is my favorite example of why that isn't such a great idea. The web browser is my most used app, but I never would have thought of adding tabbed browsing. And that is my favorite feature! (May have existed in another browser first, but I never saw it, and I saw lots of browsers.) I now seriously feel uncomfortable when when working on browsers without tabs. (It's really sad.) Tabs are simply the best in my mind, but I wouldn't be suprised to hear that they are a bad design idea from GUI experts. (And as a side note, I think having tabs turned off until opened is a bad idea).
Mozilla has a couple other little nice tweaks that I would not have thought of on my own. Yes, it has a tid bit here or there that I may like different, but, overall, if I was put in charge of designing my perfect browser a few years ago, it would not be nearly as good as Mozilla (actually, the firefox et al, but that isn't important here.)
I wonder about the team concept of UI. I think it's best to have lots of people doing what they think is best. When one starts a new app, or is going to heavily modify an existing app, then look at all the different stuff out there from a wide array of projects. Take what will work best for the project, and finally ask if there is something new that can be done. I think a high percent of bad UI comes from people who are just ignorant of better ways to solve a problem, or are too reliant on coming up with something new. I picture a team of UI experts made up of stupid loosers who have only used Windows and a small subset of Windows apps. shiver.
Anyone from a five-year-old to a WWI veteran can sit behing a Windows PC and be browsing the Internet and checking mails in no-time.
Gee, so that means I don't have to take my first customer in the morning. Thanks for telling me:) This family has been trying to get on the net using XP since mid May, and tech support at their ISP hasn't helped, although the family has already paid for two months of service. Please forward to them the definition of "no-time" and I think they will define it as "never".
Ya, this should be a rip on the ISP, but if it's so easy, I don't think they should have had to call tech support, much less me. (and I'm sure there will be plenty of ISP tech support reps to refute your "no-time" concept in favor of mine.)
Has anyone considered that the reason OSS interfaces suck is because there is no incentive to do better? This stuff is free, stop complaining. If you want quality, then pay someone for a better version
I would agree with this concept 99% of the time. Guess UI isn't one of them (for the most part). Yes, in a corporate environment for a specialized app, customization is good. However, for basic apps and those that reside primarily is userland, needing to modifying UI is a bad thing.
The problem for me is understanding what users want. (I don't write the code, but I do chose or modify as needed.) Best meaningless example I can think of is a friend of mine. He wanted the cheapest possible computer to read e-mail and write simple papers for some classes he was taking. Set him up on a $50 box with Linux. Linux was no problem. The mozilla e-mail thing he loved (as it was way better than the LotusNotes mess he had to go through at work). He played with every word processor type thing I could find, and he hated them all. While he rarely used WinWord at work, and definitely didn't need any of the features it offered, it was what he wanted. He settled on AbiWord, used it for a while, then forked over the cash for Dell with MS Office. (And MS compatibility wasn't even an issue for these classes.) Used the thing for all of six months, wrote his handful of basic papers, and hasn't touched the computer since.
Now, tell me, how can usability studies help? "Copy what they already know": A) doesn't improve use for future users B) near immitation isn't good enough
UI is a strange monster. People like different things, and a general purpose PCs make things all the worse, as different environments have different "bests" e.g. the person writing the novel, the person writing the newspaper article, the person writing the magazine article, the business person writing the memo, and the student writing the term paper should, in theory, have different needs.
Now, open this concept up to all the different apps and work place settings and home situations. Getting the "best" is basically the same as merging hundreds of images of pretty girls to form the perfect woman.
I am a jerk on the topic of UI. Find the best app for the job, and tell the user to suffer if they don't like the UI. Just like finding a wife -- you may not want to look at her every day after day after day after day, but that doesn't mean you should get a divorce just 'cause you think she should be better looking.
With so many idiot business ventures out there (ie: we have several thriving pet grooming outfits in my small home town), why can't there be a Linux-only computer store?
I thought about doing a linux only store in my town. When you start to look at the numbers, you will see why it is a bad idea. Linux has a tiny market share. Current Linux users are do-it-yourself types who won't spend more to buy a pre-loaded computer. Most people who would buy a pre-loaded computer would do it at the suggestion of an existing user. The existing user would most likely be the person to build the computer or would order it online. Hence, I suspect, that in a city of one million people you may get one sale a month. That ain't enough to pay the rent, much less give a ROI.
Pet spas and such are another matter. Many people have pets. A significant percent spend money on pets - 2004 estimate of $34.3 billion with 2003 coming in at $32.4 billion for an estimated 64 million homes. (On the front page of todays paper:P). Pet places generally don't disciminate based on breed. If one was to open a dog grooming shop that only handled labs, and suggested you only bring in golden labs, they may have a hard timing making a buck despite the popularity of labs. Now if they only handled some obscure dog that only made up one percent of the dog market, and the overwhelming majority of those owners prefered not to use pet services, well, then we would be looking at an equal market.
Lets assume the makers of Scrabble heed to the author and remove music and return it to its primary purpose.
My take on the article is that the music would be OK if it was not turned on by default. Want music? Go to "Options" and turn it on. (Don't know, but I think it's safe to say that turning the sound off is that easy, hence, he's just whining, as it is a game afterall, but I digress.) Pack all the options you want into a program (assuming it doesn't complicate the setup*), but when it starts up, it should be as basic as possible.
*Installed an educational program on my sisters computer which happily installed an older version of QuickTime over her newer version. My sisters kids never access this programs features which require QuickTime, however they use a different app which does require the newer version. Update QuickTime to use the one app, and the other won't work. Downgrade QuickTime for the app that doesn't need it, and the program that needs it won't work. You can't win. I think this is the type of thing that the author was talking about.
His article had the potential to make some valid points, he just did a poor job of presenting them.
Security always seems to take a back seat to features with MS and that is the core problem with IE.
I promise this is my last time posting this tired comment for this summer: the core problem has nothing to do with security vs features. I am quite certain, that given enough time, MicroSoft will release a great browser. I recall a short period of time when IE was way better than Netscape. Plans for Windows SP2 look promising -- which is a good thing. I am certain that for a long period of time MicroSoft will try to maintain a top notch browser. Features will outweigh security, then security will take precedence, then features, etc
The core issue is that no one other than MicroSoft has control. Analogy time, I guess. Does everyone in the world want to remain the skinny dork who gets beat up by the bully? MicroSoft can do what ever they want. They will bend a bit here and there, but for the most part, everyone is at their mercy. "Give me your homework or I'll punch you in the nose" could be the MSFT motto. Of course, even the bully has to be nice once and a while, or face rebellion. Are you smart enough to see that you are being played? Are you happy being the gutless sissy?
I know most people are happier in the submissive role. Great. They will be mildly content with anything given them. You can give them closed source and continue to make others suffer. Or give them open source, and help allow your like minded individuals flourish.
who is of the opinion that math is the gateway to higher understanding of things
I thought this would get many more replies. It is an interesting question. For most of my life I had strong leanings towards agreeing (and maybe will again tomorrow). e.g. anything can be measured, you just have to know what to measure. But math has its own built in absurdities.
I sometimes see math as its own language that has limitations of any language when it comes to "higher understanding". James Joyce saw himself as an "engineer" of words, and, well, reading "Finnegans Wake" will show you were that leads. (Although it is a great read if you have a couple helper books and lots of free time.)
Math is great and all. But, let us take a very simple example. You have two apples, and you give one to a friend. You have one apple. You cut that one in half (approximately - measure for exact portion). Repeat. At what point in time do you no longer have a fraction of an apple? Math does not answer the question. It fails in the extremes.
>> Last time I checked mozilla source code was >> readily available to you. Patch it. Done.
> The bug was reported by someone who wrote, > tested and bug-fixed a patch.
Thank you very much for that cool bit of info I overlooked! Hence, the problem was fixed quickly. Point, open source (in my worthless opinion). But, for people to reiterate that there was a security hole for two years is even more wrong. It was fixed two years ago.
It does kinda suck that the core team ignored it. But, the beauty of the open source model is that you do not NEED to rely on them, as you do with MicroSoft et al.
True story -- worked for a company a few years ago that paid top dollar for MS official support. They submitted a request for help. When I left, the ticket had been open and unsolved for six months. Recently ran into a person who still works for the company. The issue remains unfixed by MS (she even showed me the web page that chronicles the issue at MS), and this company spent additional thousands of dollars in consulting fees to independant MS "experts". However, the company eventually moved the server to FreeBSD which solved the problem. This company was not reimbursed for down time, failed solutions, et al that resulted from MicroSoft's inability to provide working software. What are all these people saying about needing an accountable company to back you?
The Mozilla team isn't proactive on security issues. The dangers of Windows URL schemes have been known to the Mozilla team since mid-2002
I said last time around I said if I heard this comment one more time I would scream, and, well, I just scared my poor dog. Who the heck is this "Mozilla team" you are insulting? Last time I checked mozilla source code was readily available to you. Patch it. Done. If someone "official" doesn't want to include it in the nightly build, too bad. Put up a little website at geocities.com/securemozilla and post a message on your geek board of choice.
Such is the burden of open source. You can't complain about the coding choice of another person if you are lazy and/or stupid. I don't see it as a failure of the Mozilla team, but a failure of Windows users who were too lame to fix it themselves.
Now, you know, Microsoft understands that 90% of the world's people are generally stupid and uneducated. They cater to them. They give them crappy software that makes lUsers feel smart
But I suspect a certain percentage of those stupid people are slowly educating themselves. Having computers in the home is relatively new for most folks. And, even in the work place, the majority a businesses are on the newbie side.
We are seeing the industry mature. Windows 2000 was leaps and bounds better than Windows 95. Users expectations are slowly changing.
Some slashdot readers were aware of flaws in Windows that had been seen before and corrected on other computers. Most slashdot readers picked up those interesting bits of trivia right here. Heck, we just had a nice VMS thread here, and I am very certain only a handful of readers had a clue just how cool those machines were in some aspects.
[rant]The primary reason I like Linux is the GNU. The fact that it is a darn stable system is secondary to me. Many folks gave Linux a try only because they were fed up with Windows problems and saw something at a low cost. I think to see continued success of Linux, GNU, BSD, et al, we need to stay focused on all advantages of Open Source and Free software. Given enough time, I'm sure MS will put out even better products (which is nice), but there are a few issues that they can't touch.[/rant]
...They'll pass a resolution against spam and that's the last we'll hear of it.
Not quite. First there will be at least one innocent person who has his life ruined because of some far reaching interpretation of the policy. However, blatant spam with procede uninterupted.
BTW, in these kinds of lists, the notes always say 'CLEARLY visible'. I look at the scene carefully when watching a movie again, and almost never see anything...
I have heard this to be the fault of the theater projectionist in many situations. I guess a movie does have lots of stuff around the edges that is to be clipped when it is shown. But, if not set up right, then the cameras, crew, et al will be visable. Don't know for sure where I've heard this, but my guess would be Roger Ebert. Honestly not concerned enough to google, as I never noticed such problems. Actually, the vast majority of flaws in lists like these leave me shrugging and saying, "so what". I like an interesting tidbit of trivia, but long lists are simply monotonous.
Can you literally run something on a shoe-string budget?
I am becoming literally annoyed with references such as "really attractive for low-resource groups and countries". Typically low budget places don't have the knowledge to deal with any level of computer complexity. Set up a super fancy linux system in a quaint third world then leave. Who is going to do the maintanace? Think the person you trained is going to remember the general details, much less be able to trouble shoot? While clever cheap solutions sound really nice in theory, frequently the reality works quite differrently. Volunteers are not the most reliable source for sys admins. Chances are the work will be done by someone with little or no computer experince. See Algorithms in Africa for a slightly better overview by someone with real world experience. To quote:
"These questions all led to the same answer: the Brigades would be left in even worse shape than I found them. Rather than gaining empowerment, independence and enablement, they would more than likely be left powerless, dependent and possibly ruined. And all because of my own cultural myopia, despite my good intentions."
What's the difference? About $299.
Or much more if you consider a server comparison.,/i>
No, the difference is vendor neutrality. In an imaginary world, if Windows OS was GPL and you could pick up a copy from your supplier of choice, then you would be comparing, um, apples to apples. To some people, being locked into one distributor is a bad thing. To others, not have the source available is a bad thing. Windows OS and Linux OS are just two different things no matter how similar they become.
Slashdot Mirror
The article mentioned that people who are more social tend to be more happy. Many religious groups are very socially active. If one is a loner, who has a hard time making new friends, the right religious group is just the ticket. (I'm an atheist myself, so I can't play :P)
But I've noticed that some of the churches around me, in addition to bible study classes, maintain a a very active social calendar for all ages. These churches get it. You are getting people involved, making friends, and keeping the group all together to hinder outside influences from evil people like me.
So, in summary, I think religion can make a person more happy.
And here is the link to the American Taliban:
http://www.reandev.com/taliban/
It's scarey stuff.
Although it was originally thought pterosaurs merely glided, it is now believed they flapped their wings for powered flight. "If they were able to use a frog-like jump, that would have given them an extra bit of lift,"
Now, from where do they make these "frog-like" jumps? Some cliffs here and there, I suppose. But I'm picturing these monster sized birds climbing in the trees.
Or another comparison to modern birds: Where do they build their nests? Couldn't use simple staw, they'd need some serious lumber.
>> Details at 11.
> Or "23-12" as we like to call it.
Or "24-1"? I think that sort of math is more fitting for a Windows95 thread, wouldn't you agree?
I recall buying a Win95 preinstalled box ASAP. I then reverted that box to a Win3.11/OS2 combo... in case anyone cares :P Just to brag, was merrily using linux at the time on my primary computer. Now I don't use linux except when I have to. How times have changed )-:
Peace.
Problem is, I'm not interested in commerce, I want to listen to quality music.
I don't give a hoot about "quality" music :) I like gritty bootlegged concerts. If a top 40 act can put on a good live show, so be it. To date, off hand, I can't think of any.
So now there are these great specialized internet radio's with music I never heard before.
Now we're talkin'. I purchase maybe a CD a month. Since the dawn of napster, I have only purchased one top 40 cd -- and that was the recent Foo Fighters. Everything else I found either via napster/livewire (in the "old days"), or, in recent years, stuff I found via internet radio and via artist web pages sent to me by alert fans. The variety out there is just incredible!
I wonder how music fans survived pre-internet. I'd think one would have to move to a big city and hit lots of live shows. Now, I can live in the middle of nowhere, and hear all those great acts. Added bonus have having access to music from around the world. Can download multiple concerts from my favorite bands, purchase a single or two for bands that I have style I don't like but accidentally put out a groovy song that would never make the radio, etc etc etc.
Music and the internet go together just perfectly.
Bullshit. A lot of imams and others have spoken out against it. It just doesn't get the same airplay. You do a Google News search and you'll see many articles pointing out a recent instance. But many Muslim organizations in the US and elsewhere have spoken out against it.
As a muslim, I call bullshit :)
The imams speaking out against terrorism have very little ground to stand on. While they may cite shariah regarding war needing to be fought according to certain rules, there is more than enough ahadith and ayat in the Quran to support violence. You can't read garbage like this and come away feeling all warm and fuzzy.
Off hand I know of two American muslims who took a stance against violence in Islam pre-911, and they were assisinated. (The murders are still bragged about to this day with all sorts of "all thanks to Allah".) It's scarey stuff.
While I have no more tolerance for xians and their illogical take on religion, if you can suffer through the propoganda, The online book "Prophet of Doom" quite nicely captures the essence of Islam. Available here:
Prophet of Doom
Now back to the ID debate...
I built a yahoo toolbar long ago. I live on the Yahoo family of sites :P
So, I pulled my "Bookmarks Toolbar Folder" up along side the menus, so I have:
File ... Help | []My Yahoo []Mail []Yahoo (drop down folder)...
I've recently been using del.icio.us for quickly saving bookmarks that can be accessed from other computers.
Of couse, yahoo seach is the default search tucked nicely along the address bar.
You have everything you need all nicely scrunched up on top, so you can also use tabs without cutting into screen space.
To make a short story long -- everything the Yahoo Toolbar offers, can be done with a default install of FireFox and some simple rearranging of existing toolbar locations. And, in my opinion, the DIY method produces a better result.
(honestly just posting because it's been months, maybe years, since I've written anything here :P)
When I read SCO's original complaint, it seemed to me that SCO was publically talking about copyright but in court was trying to argue that IBM had not played fair wrt. Monterey.> /P>
I am glad you mentioned Monterey. Must say I didn't read all the dribble written, just searched for that key word after a few posts. Montery is very important. I recall when the idea was introduced as I'm sure most /. readers will pretend. Companies doing these joint things are scarey, yet, the practice continues.
Just my 2 cents. Ignore me now. (sig material?)
I'm still getting MyDoom.o emails. It spread like wildfire inside the company I work at....
This is rhetorical and wishful: when are we going to get some anti-virus software that protects us before an outbreak?
(please don't say don't run Windows, it is realistic but not realistic today right here)
When you say, "don't run Windows", do you mean on the mail server? Off the top of my head, I know of this procmail tweak which can do wonders to stop new virus type threats when set up wisely. I've seen it put to good use at a few places that use Windows desktops. I would imagine that if one was a bit clever, there should be a similar solution on Windows servers also.
"IBM" is a company...
some commissioned sales people aren't pushing Linux is no surprise, but it doesn't mean IBM as a whole doesn't get it.
Ok. For simplicity sake I'll agree with you. If comissioned sales do better with linux than with AIX et al, does that not agree with my concept that they are in it for the money? If said sales people do better with closed source, do you think IBM as a corp would not push closed source more? Either way I win. Maybe I didn't make it clear enough in my original post, but it's about the money. I see the heart and soul of open source being the printer driver of RMS lore. It's GREAT that IBM can make some money selling open source! But, at the end of the day, if you have a problem you can't fix, or an idea you can't implement because of closed source, the point is mute. (Or for the simple minded, it is moo, be that you can give it to a cow.) IBM is pushing Linux because they can make money. But I promise they will push something else 5, 10, 20 years from now if open source isn't profitable -- that is their obligation to the stock holders.
I guess I'm coming off as a real jerk. But my point is that open source gives the end user control. Your mind should not be manipulated by whether or not open source is backed by big corps. (And I am not even implying that the author of the above post was swayed into the open source concept because of major backing.) My fear is that some people will abondon the free software concept once a key player or two pull out.
Open source gives any company, regardless of size or "MVP" status, the freedom to innovate, create, fix, and resolve. Open source gives indivduals (without big bucks) the ability to learn by doing. These are two key points that closed source can not touch. These are two areas that scare the heck out of many companies currently in power or who want power. IBM has power, but they want to break free of the MSFT current and potential future domination.
To reiterate, IBM supporting Linux is good. To live by IBM support of Linux is bad. And, again, I am not implying that the poster is an IBM slave, I jsut want to point out that there is more to open source than Big Company selling open source.
In contrast, IBM fully understands what open source is all about, and manages to deal with the concept in an intelligent manner, instead of trying to make compromises and deal with half measures.
I agree with the idea that MSFT allowing those deemed "MVP" worthy to view the source code is meaningless. But I doubt IBM understands open source. They are selling open source stuff because they make money doing so. If it conflicts with their other software, they will push closed source. And they will push it hard to the detriment of open source. Anybody have the link handy for the statements from HP? HP is trying to sell linux servers to existing IBM AIX customers, and IBM is alleged to bad mouth linux something fierce. While I can't back the claims of HP, I see no reason to believe that IBM is a saint of open source. When IBM goes 100% GPL, then I will trust them. The partial backing of IBM is a GoodThing, but I don't think the people of importance at IBM really "understand" open source.
Insert some random badmouthing of MSFT backed by personal experience.
And, yes, some OSS projects do this very well. Mozilla products (Firefox, etc.) are very well designed. There are minor usability flaws, but nothing that isn't easy to figure out.
This reply probably should go under a different thread, but I couldn't find quite the right place :P
People are talking about letting users design the UI. But Mozilla is my favorite example of why that isn't such a great idea. The web browser is my most used app, but I never would have thought of adding tabbed browsing. And that is my favorite feature! (May have existed in another browser first, but I never saw it, and I saw lots of browsers.) I now seriously feel uncomfortable when when working on browsers without tabs. (It's really sad.) Tabs are simply the best in my mind, but I wouldn't be suprised to hear that they are a bad design idea from GUI experts. (And as a side note, I think having tabs turned off until opened is a bad idea).
Mozilla has a couple other little nice tweaks that I would not have thought of on my own. Yes, it has a tid bit here or there that I may like different, but, overall, if I was put in charge of designing my perfect browser a few years ago, it would not be nearly as good as Mozilla (actually, the firefox et al, but that isn't important here.)
I wonder about the team concept of UI. I think it's best to have lots of people doing what they think is best. When one starts a new app, or is going to heavily modify an existing app, then look at all the different stuff out there from a wide array of projects. Take what will work best for the project, and finally ask if there is something new that can be done. I think a high percent of bad UI comes from people who are just ignorant of better ways to solve a problem, or are too reliant on coming up with something new. I picture a team of UI experts made up of stupid loosers who have only used Windows and a small subset of Windows apps. shiver.
Anyone from a five-year-old to a WWI veteran can sit behing a Windows PC and be browsing the Internet and checking mails in no-time.
Gee, so that means I don't have to take my first customer in the morning. Thanks for telling me :) This family has been trying to get on the net using XP since mid May, and tech support at their ISP hasn't helped, although the family has already paid for two months of service. Please forward to them the definition of "no-time" and I think they will define it as "never".
Ya, this should be a rip on the ISP, but if it's so easy, I don't think they should have had to call tech support, much less me. (and I'm sure there will be plenty of ISP tech support reps to refute your "no-time" concept in favor of mine.)
Has anyone considered that the reason OSS interfaces suck is because there is no incentive to do better? This stuff is free, stop complaining. If you want quality, then pay someone for a better version
I would agree with this concept 99% of the time. Guess UI isn't one of them (for the most part). Yes, in a corporate environment for a specialized app, customization is good. However, for basic apps and those that reside primarily is userland, needing to modifying UI is a bad thing.
The problem for me is understanding what users want. (I don't write the code, but I do chose or modify as needed.) Best meaningless example I can think of is a friend of mine. He wanted the cheapest possible computer to read e-mail and write simple papers for some classes he was taking. Set him up on a $50 box with Linux. Linux was no problem. The mozilla e-mail thing he loved (as it was way better than the LotusNotes mess he had to go through at work). He played with every word processor type thing I could find, and he hated them all. While he rarely used WinWord at work, and definitely didn't need any of the features it offered, it was what he wanted. He settled on AbiWord, used it for a while, then forked over the cash for Dell with MS Office. (And MS compatibility wasn't even an issue for these classes.) Used the thing for all of six months, wrote his handful of basic papers, and hasn't touched the computer since.
Now, tell me, how can usability studies help?
"Copy what they already know":
A) doesn't improve use for future users
B) near immitation isn't good enough
UI is a strange monster. People like different things, and a general purpose PCs make things all the worse, as different environments have different "bests" e.g. the person writing the novel, the person writing the newspaper article, the person writing the magazine article, the business person writing the memo, and the student writing the term paper should, in theory, have different needs.
Now, open this concept up to all the different apps and work place settings and home situations. Getting the "best" is basically the same as merging hundreds of images of pretty girls to form the perfect woman.
I am a jerk on the topic of UI. Find the best app for the job, and tell the user to suffer if they don't like the UI. Just like finding a wife -- you may not want to look at her every day after day after day after day, but that doesn't mean you should get a divorce just 'cause you think she should be better looking.
And that's all I have to say about that...
With so many idiot business ventures out there (ie: we have several thriving pet grooming outfits in my small home town), why can't there be a Linux-only computer store?
I thought about doing a linux only store in my town. When you start to look at the numbers, you will see why it is a bad idea. Linux has a tiny market share. Current Linux users are do-it-yourself types who won't spend more to buy a pre-loaded computer. Most people who would buy a pre-loaded computer would do it at the suggestion of an existing user. The existing user would most likely be the person to build the computer or would order it online. Hence, I suspect, that in a city of one million people you may get one sale a month. That ain't enough to pay the rent, much less give a ROI.
Pet spas and such are another matter. Many people have pets. A significant percent spend money on pets - 2004 estimate of $34.3 billion with 2003 coming in at $32.4 billion for an estimated 64 million homes. (On the front page of todays paper :P). Pet places generally don't disciminate based on breed. If one was to open a dog grooming shop that only handled labs, and suggested you only bring in golden labs, they may have a hard timing making a buck despite the popularity of labs. Now if they only handled some obscure dog that only made up one percent of the dog market, and the overwhelming majority of those owners prefered not to use pet services, well, then we would be looking at an equal market.
Lets assume the makers of Scrabble heed to the author and remove music and return it to its primary purpose.
My take on the article is that the music would be OK if it was not turned on by default. Want music? Go to "Options" and turn it on. (Don't know, but I think it's safe to say that turning the sound off is that easy, hence, he's just whining, as it is a game afterall, but I digress.) Pack all the options you want into a program (assuming it doesn't complicate the setup*), but when it starts up, it should be as basic as possible.
*Installed an educational program on my sisters computer which happily installed an older version of QuickTime over her newer version. My sisters kids never access this programs features which require QuickTime, however they use a different app which does require the newer version. Update QuickTime to use the one app, and the other won't work. Downgrade QuickTime for the app that doesn't need it, and the program that needs it won't work. You can't win. I think this is the type of thing that the author was talking about.
His article had the potential to make some valid points, he just did a poor job of presenting them.
Security always seems to take a back seat to features with MS and that is the core problem with IE.
I promise this is my last time posting this tired comment for this summer: the core problem has nothing to do with security vs features. I am quite certain, that given enough time, MicroSoft will release a great browser. I recall a short period of time when IE was way better than Netscape. Plans for Windows SP2 look promising -- which is a good thing. I am certain that for a long period of time MicroSoft will try to maintain a top notch browser. Features will outweigh security, then security will take precedence, then features, etcThe core issue is that no one other than MicroSoft has control. Analogy time, I guess. Does everyone in the world want to remain the skinny dork who gets beat up by the bully? MicroSoft can do what ever they want. They will bend a bit here and there, but for the most part, everyone is at their mercy. "Give me your homework or I'll punch you in the nose" could be the MSFT motto. Of course, even the bully has to be nice once and a while, or face rebellion. Are you smart enough to see that you are being played? Are you happy being the gutless sissy?
I know most people are happier in the submissive role. Great. They will be mildly content with anything given them. You can give them closed source and continue to make others suffer. Or give them open source, and help allow your like minded individuals flourish.
who is of the opinion that math is the gateway to higher understanding of things
I thought this would get many more replies. It is an interesting question. For most of my life I had strong leanings towards agreeing (and maybe will again tomorrow). e.g. anything can be measured, you just have to know what to measure. But math has its own built in absurdities.
I sometimes see math as its own language that has limitations of any language when it comes to "higher understanding". James Joyce saw himself as an "engineer" of words, and, well, reading "Finnegans Wake" will show you were that leads. (Although it is a great read if you have a couple helper books and lots of free time.)
Math is great and all. But, let us take a very simple example. You have two apples, and you give one to a friend. You have one apple. You cut that one in half (approximately - measure for exact portion). Repeat. At what point in time do you no longer have a fraction of an apple? Math does not answer the question. It fails in the extremes.
>> Last time I checked mozilla source code was
>> readily available to you. Patch it. Done.
> The bug was reported by someone who wrote,
> tested and bug-fixed a patch.
Thank you very much for that cool bit of info I overlooked! Hence, the problem was fixed quickly. Point, open source (in my worthless opinion). But, for people to reiterate that there was a security hole for two years is even more wrong. It was fixed two years ago.
It does kinda suck that the core team ignored it. But, the beauty of the open source model is that you do not NEED to rely on them, as you do with MicroSoft et al.
True story -- worked for a company a few years ago that paid top dollar for MS official support. They submitted a request for help. When I left, the ticket had been open and unsolved for six months. Recently ran into a person who still works for the company. The issue remains unfixed by MS (she even showed me the web page that chronicles the issue at MS), and this company spent additional thousands of dollars in consulting fees to independant MS "experts". However, the company eventually moved the server to FreeBSD which solved the problem. This company was not reimbursed for down time, failed solutions, et al that resulted from MicroSoft's inability to provide working software. What are all these people saying about needing an accountable company to back you?
The Mozilla team isn't proactive on security issues. The dangers of Windows URL schemes have been known to the Mozilla team since mid-2002
I said last time around I said if I heard this comment one more time I would scream, and, well, I just scared my poor dog. Who the heck is this "Mozilla team" you are insulting? Last time I checked mozilla source code was readily available to you. Patch it. Done. If someone "official" doesn't want to include it in the nightly build, too bad. Put up a little website at geocities.com/securemozilla and post a message on your geek board of choice.
Such is the burden of open source. You can't complain about the coding choice of another person if you are lazy and/or stupid. I don't see it as a failure of the Mozilla team, but a failure of Windows users who were too lame to fix it themselves.
Now, you know, Microsoft understands that 90% of the world's people are generally stupid and uneducated. They cater to them. They give them crappy software that makes lUsers feel smart
But I suspect a certain percentage of those stupid people are slowly educating themselves. Having computers in the home is relatively new for most folks. And, even in the work place, the majority a businesses are on the newbie side.
We are seeing the industry mature. Windows 2000 was leaps and bounds better than Windows 95. Users expectations are slowly changing.
Some slashdot readers were aware of flaws in Windows that had been seen before and corrected on other computers. Most slashdot readers picked up those interesting bits of trivia right here. Heck, we just had a nice VMS thread here, and I am very certain only a handful of readers had a clue just how cool those machines were in some aspects.
[rant]The primary reason I like Linux is the GNU. The fact that it is a darn stable system is secondary to me. Many folks gave Linux a try only because they were fed up with Windows problems and saw something at a low cost. I think to see continued success of Linux, GNU, BSD, et al, we need to stay focused on all advantages of Open Source and Free software. Given enough time, I'm sure MS will put out even better products (which is nice), but there are a few issues that they can't touch.[/rant]
Not quite. First there will be at least one innocent person who has his life ruined because of some far reaching interpretation of the policy. However, blatant spam with procede uninterupted.
BTW, in these kinds of lists, the notes always say 'CLEARLY visible'. I look at the scene carefully when watching a movie again, and almost never see anything...
I have heard this to be the fault of the theater projectionist in many situations. I guess a movie does have lots of stuff around the edges that is to be clipped when it is shown. But, if not set up right, then the cameras, crew, et al will be visable. Don't know for sure where I've heard this, but my guess would be Roger Ebert. Honestly not concerned enough to google, as I never noticed such problems. Actually, the vast majority of flaws in lists like these leave me shrugging and saying, "so what". I like an interesting tidbit of trivia, but long lists are simply monotonous.
Can you literally run something on a shoe-string budget?
I am becoming literally annoyed with references such as "really attractive for low-resource groups and countries". Typically low budget places don't have the knowledge to deal with any level of computer complexity. Set up a super fancy linux system in a quaint third world then leave. Who is going to do the maintanace? Think the person you trained is going to remember the general details, much less be able to trouble shoot? While clever cheap solutions sound really nice in theory, frequently the reality works quite differrently. Volunteers are not the most reliable source for sys admins. Chances are the work will be done by someone with little or no computer experince. See Algorithms in Africa for a slightly better overview by someone with real world experience. To quote:
What's the difference? About $299. Or much more if you consider a server comparison.,/i>
No, the difference is vendor neutrality. In an imaginary world, if Windows OS was GPL and you could pick up a copy from your supplier of choice, then you would be comparing, um, apples to apples. To some people, being locked into one distributor is a bad thing. To others, not have the source available is a bad thing. Windows OS and Linux OS are just two different things no matter how similar they become.