A lady on one of the Alphabet networks stated that she trusted handcounting more than she trusts all this computer stuff. Electronic voting is a high tech way to tell people that they are no longer worth catering to.
Besides, the Pentagon, Microsoft, and a whole host of computer companies which ought to know better can't keep their systems safe from hackers. What makes you think electronic voting would be any safer?
Finally, electronig voting still doesn't solve the problem. When you get down to 300-400 votes being different between two idiot candidates, when something like six million votes are cast, it doesn't matter who wins. Statistically they are even. The problem is, both idiots want the job so bad that they can't see how lame duckish they are before they get into office.
Off the top of my head (and I freely admit that I could be 100% wrong) I would think that aerodynamics developed from fluid dynamics, which are much easier to observe and, until the invention of aircraft, were much more useful. As to the fluid dynamics, I again doubt that they developed from looking at fish. Most likely they developed by putting simple physical objects into a stream and looking at what happens. Add to that a lot of practical experience with boats and ships of all kinds and you have a pretty good base.
You're right. You are 100% wrong. The concept of flight was first concieved of, and attempting to imitate birds. Which is why so many people died in the attempt. I'm not at all sure where the fixed wing concept came from, but it was tested in wind tunnels, as well as on rocky hills soon to be covered in bloody piles of bodies. It wasn't until much much later, probably near WWII that fluid dynamics entered the picture at all. Wilber and Orvil were, after all, bicycle makers with a hobby.
Kaa, you seem to have a problem with the reviewer and it would probably be in your best interest and get help.
You guys drive me nuts. Take a product that is given away for free. Modify it against the wishes of the company that is trying to build a business model off of that product. Two years from now they'll be out of business and the Slashdot community will put them there.
Maybe if shashdot hackers worked with these people instead of against them they wouldn't be so reactionary.
He doesn't comment on people killings, outside of the fact that it can be pretty cool.
He does comment on the meat industry, which he regards as, shall I use the word, "Evil."
I for one welcome the rating on the game. I don't believe children should play any of the games mentioned for the same reason I don't let children watch XXX-rated videos and "Faces of Death." Some things children simply can't handle. Sure a sixteen year old could handle all of this stuff, but you have to draw the line somewhere. How's about you draw the line at the same age where someone can be qualified to be carted off to some foriegn country to have their head blown off.
Your author is nuts. Animals, even those that can be pets, are food. We could eat them alive, but where's the humanity in that.
I read Slashdot for Industry related news stories, not political diatribes by intensly insane authors with an ax to grind. Leave the food politics at home.
If you read the article, you discover that the single biggest reason why people are fighting this is net congestion. This all points back to Napster.
If you take your dog into the woods and it attacks the cute fury little rodents and eats the birds and chases the deer so that nobody else can see nature in all of its glory, you shouldn't be surprised when somebody tells you you can't take your dog into the woods anymore.
If you utilize Napster to download a huge hoard of music onto a machine you probably don't own, on a network you are basically borrowing, at a University where they have better things to do than stand idly buy why you use the available bandwidth of the school to download music you shouldn't have anyway, then you shouldn't be surprised when they put blocks on how much bandwidth you are allowed to use.
If you work for a company and behaved this way most companies would just fire your Lilly White B---.
Another example would be people who smoke cigarettes. You sit at a table smoking a cigarette and then you blow smoke into the face of the person sitting next to you who still might be eating. If he/she asks you to quit you whine "you're infinging on my right to smoke." This person should not be surpised when somebody finally says, "Fine, but I'll make it against the law for you to smoke where I eat. That'll solve my problem."
My point is: Behave responsibly and people around you won't have a problem. Behave irresponsibly and people around you will find a means of forcing responsible behaviour.
By the way, the Internet isn't about free speach, its about communication. If you are alway shouting then you should be surprised when somebody muzzles you.
At least they stopped only half way though the book. Imagine how terrible it would have been had they attempted to include the bits about how a bunch of savages ended up taking over the whole universe. More importantly, John Travolta saved us having to watch hours and hours of advanced ecomonics and governments being discussed by people who had been living in tribes for a thousand years.
Oh wait, you wanted something about the movie. Think of what the movie says about Hollywood's belief in technology. To think that a thousand years from now you will be able to find even one hand held nuclear device is really just too astounding. But, yet, the movie would have use believe that technology will one day be so good and simple that even a back woods man-animal will be able to fly harrier jets or set off nuclear weapons. And better yet, libraries will be perfectly arranged so that someone walking in from the street will know where to look for harrier jets, nuclear missles or even Fort Knox.
Think of a world without decay where only the stuff you need to know can be found at the library.
This movie says a lot of really good things about technology. Were it not for the Psyclos things would be just perfect.
The Gravity Guy is a kook. He reminds me of myself when someone tells me theres a problem with my software. I say "That can't happen."
In point of fact, it did happen. The bones are there. The creatures lived. There is no evidence that indicates gravity has changed over a period of weeks, years, decades or even Ions. Certainly it can be said that the amount of space junk falling on the Earth has probably caused a marginal increase in Gravity over the past 200 million years.
Think about it though. As time went by the Dinosaurs got bigger not smaller.
There isn't any use throwing a bunch of math based on a weight lifter from Russia at the problem either. Nature has done some incredibly complicated things over time and Gravity Guys smallish understanding of Jurasic Physics and Physiology really can't compare or compete.
Gravity Guy has forgotten the number one rule of assumptions:
Intel's best engineers are over forty. Take a walk through one of there engineering facilities and most of the premo development jobs are owned by people who have been doing it a long time.
If Intel told you this it must be because they tend to hire a cadre of really young engineers with a wide variety of skills that they can burn out.
Intel uses youth for the same reason the military does. It doesn't matter if you are killed so long as you can carry the pack, run up the hill, and shoot the gun.
The very few engineers that survive the initial years of death march level productivity grow into very good engineers that make a fortune. They just don't work as hard.
You must be kidding. Just because you have the freedom to express something stupid doesn't mean that you should actually say it. Cults of all kinds of beliefs have existed in Europe for a thousand years. On the other hand, Nazi memorabilia tend to recall a time in history that for Eurpopeans is still very much a part of the cultural makeup. In Europe there are still people who remember the Nazis. This is not even on the same par as the U.S. wanting to ban exporting Encryption. This is simply using a law to prevent the auction of items that most members of a society find repugnant. This isn't a freedom of expression issue. Yahoo isn't expressing itself. This is an issue of self identity. If my country decides, and I decide to continue living there, that Nazi memorabilia is moraly reprehensible, and morever, should be as much hidden from public view as the full force of the law can require, then it should not be your right as a citizen of country USA to auction those items in my country against my and my countries will. In other words, your freedoms don't apply in my country. Remember, most countries don't have a bill of rights. Now, technically, what France is asking is impossible. However, due to the expansive nature of the net there will come a time in the future when the net does have logically defined geographical boundaries. When this happens it will be inforcable, as will other, more restrictive rules put in place by other countries. If you think I'm kidding then just check out what is happening on Yahoo's site itself. They have whole lists of links devoted to very specific geographical boundaries.
Once, while getting my gas tank replaced after having hit a rock which I thought was a paper bag, the auto-mechanic was looking at the removed fuel pump, dripping gasoline all over himself, and smoking a cigarette at the same time.
I didn't want to make him mad so I slowly backed as far away from him as I could get.
Then it dawned on him. "Joe," he called to a co-worker, "I've been smoking a cigarette while working with this gas tank." He laughed as if it was the funniest thing he'd ever done.
I wondered to myself, "if the man sets himself on fire, who was going to fix my car."
I own two computers that run both Linux and Windows. My modems don't work on either computer in Linux mode. What should I care what browser I'm using on Linux, I can't even access the WEB from my Linux box.
If you're viewing the Linux issue as an ongoing war with Microsoft, then I have news for you. You've already lost the war. Microsoft already owns the desktop market. Microsoft already owns the browser market. Microsoft already owns the word processor market.
The Linux advantage is not Apache or WEB Browsers or even the WEB. The Linux advantage is that it offers a choice. As Linux gets better, the choice becomes easier. As more people move toward a Linux environment, and Linux becomes more stable, the choice gets easier. As Microsoft continues to dink with their cost structure, and Linux continues to be free, the choice gets easier.
Oh, and don't worry about those sites that offer browser specific implementations, in a world where sites make money based upon access, any company denying service because of browser based incompatabilities is shooting itself in the foot.
While interesting to read, the commentor needs to take a longer view of history than the time since Linux arrived on the scene. The truth is, Microsoft has made the industry. Microsoft made the internet, and Microsoft is probably going to lead the industry for at least the immediate future. Don't get me wrong, I don't like Microsoft. I don't like what they do. I think that by and large their development staff tends to creatively borrow the best ideas from other sources.
I do remember though when my dad built a Digital Group computer and there was no operating system to run on it. I remember my first Apple II, and the only language available "Microsoft Basic." I remember that Microsoft bought MS-DOS because the original leader, the maker of "CPM" wasn't smart enough to sell it to IBM. If it weren't for Microsoft we would all be realing from the heavy boot of IBM, in a proprietary world where IBM not only owned the operating system, but the hardware design as well.
In time Microsoft has taken the best ideas of the computer age and placed them at the hands of people who couldn't even conceive of owning a computer twenty or thirty years ago.
The commentator noted that Mr. Gates thinks he had a lot to do with the internet explosion. The truth is, that is a well founded fact. It's true that most Server run on some variant of UNIX, but most of the consumers of that knowledge run on computers running Microsoft. If it weren't for Microsoft and their products, the internet would forever remain a playground of the intellictually elite ( E-Snobs ).
Fault Gates for a lot of things, but it is almost a sure thing, if you work in the industry, you owe your livelyhood to him.
While interesting to read, the commentor needs to take a longer view of history than the time since Linux arrived on the scene. The truth is, Microsoft has made the industry. Microsoft made the internet, and Microsoft is probably going to lead the industry for at least the immediate future. Don't get me wrong, I don't like Microsoft. I don't like what they do. I think that by and large their development staff tends to creatively borrow the best ideas from other sources.
I do remember though when my dad built a Digital Group computer and there was no operating system to run on it. I remember my first Apple II, and the only language available "Microsoft Basic." I remember that Microsoft bought MS-DOS because the original leader, the maker of "CPM" wasn't smart enough to sell it to IBM. If it weren't for Microsoft we would all be realing from the heavy boot of IBM, in a proprietary world where IBM not only owned the operating system, but the hardware design as well.
In time Microsoft has taken the best ideas of the computer age and placed them at the hands of people who couldn't even conceive of owning a computer twenty or thirty years ago.
The commentator noted that Mr. Gates thinks he had a lot to do with the internet explosion. The truth is, that is a well founded fact. It's true that most Server run on some variant of UNIX, but most of the consumers of that knowledge run on computers running Microsoft. If it weren't for Microsoft and their products, the internet would forever remain a playground of the intellictually elite ( E-Snobs ).
Faults Gates for a lot of things, but it is almost a sure thing, if you work in the industry, you owe your livelyhood to him.
It's widely regarded that Microsoft employ's superior programmers. Mostly though, what MS employs is hubris. They have this: "We know better than you" attitude that can drive novice programmers nuts. The truth with MS is that if you encounter a feature in their programs they tell you that it's your fault for not knowing how to use their programs. This is an attitude that stems from the insanity of their corporate king, Mr. Bill.
Any good programmer can pass certification, but it takes a really good programmer to know that everything he/she writes is not the best solution.
This is why Linux does so well. The people who put out the code know deep down that if their stuff is really good it will be accepted, and if it isn't it will be rewritten. More importantly, they have the self confidence to let thousands of people step through their code looking for bugs. Show me a Microsoft programmer willing to let somebody he's never met debug his stuff and I will show you a programmer who uses Linux without his bosses knowledge.
Bullshit! What are you going to do? Open Source all code used to run a nuclear generator, or the space shuttle, or even a cruise missle. Companies that write software programs for life cancelling projects tend to implement huge efforts to test/catch and repair software bugs. What you are saying is that you want some Joe nobody looking at the control software for a 747 and seeing if he can find a bug in it. I can just see being an engineer on that type of project. Having to tell six thousand people that line 2393 doesn't have a bug, it just looks like one.
Open source isn't the solver of all problems. It just replaces your current problems with a whole set of newer, more irritating problems.
Iv'e seen this article once before, something like a couple of months ago or last summer. To this man who values complexity I only have one thing to ask:
Why do you want to reinvent the wheel?
I've been deep into UNIX for over six years, and one of the things I like about it is that it always has something new to learn. This is good for me. What I don't like doing is having to discover how group A thought that their method of implementing 'ps' is better than group B, whose group I grew up with. I hate having to figure out exactly how Red Hat starts up and configures X, and then moving to Debian only to discover that they did something just a little different.
Now the author would like to dump the GUI, as he believes that it clouds the religious experience which is Linux. I can understand that. I like the GUI because for the most part it allows me to do more than I can do with just one window open.
HP-UX uses SAM to configure and maintain pretty much the whole machine. Without SAM I would have to delve deep into HP-UX and figure out how to do what somebody else has already discovered.
What I am trying to say is, I don't like doing what somebody else has already figured out how to do. Learning and knowledge are only benificial when they can be used to discover or create something which is truly unique.
Microsoft understands this. They've taken what is, in essence, an extremely complicated device and turned it into something which allows normal people to be creative without having to figure out all the stuff that somebody else has already had to learn.
Now I'm not a defender of Microsoft, and it is my sincere goal to replace everything I have from Microsoft in the next five years. I believe that with continued improvement of Linux and the KDE that it will be possible to convince my family that Linux is a good thing.
However, as I have no love for Red Hat, and I think that Debian's installation is easier and does give me more control about what goes onto my machine, I would greatly appriciate any improvements in their distribution that they can make.
What would be a deal breaker for this though is for the Linux comunity to fall under the sway of this article, and keep the complexity in the installation.
The goal should be that a ten year old could read the installation sheet and install without having to know all the ancillary crap that we are normally required to track. Harder still, it would be in Linux's best interest to become simple enough for my wife to install it without having to know anything. Then if the ten year old, or my wife, wanted to dive into the control and configuration of the system they could, otherwise they wouldn't have to worry about it.
Now for the author's assertion that Clueless Users would contact the author/maintainer of some program, that probably happens on occassion, however, it is more true that if a user is truly clueless, and he reaches a point where something doesn't work, he's probably just going to throw it away and go for something that doesn't consume so much of his time. Truly clueless users don't waste time contacting software authors, they most likely don't even know how. More imporantly, they are likely to tell others that they know that Linux is a bad experience, thus preventing the further spread of the operating system.
And remember this little thought. If Linux doesn't grow and get better and expand its market share, it will die as an operating system.
Slashdot Mirror
A lady on one of the Alphabet networks stated that she trusted handcounting more than she trusts all this computer stuff. Electronic voting is a high tech way to tell people that they are no longer worth catering to.
Besides, the Pentagon, Microsoft, and a whole host of computer companies which ought to know better can't keep their systems safe from hackers. What makes you think electronic voting would be any safer?
Finally, electronig voting still doesn't solve the problem. When you get down to 300-400 votes being different between two idiot candidates, when something like six million votes are cast, it doesn't matter who wins. Statistically they are even. The problem is, both idiots want the job so bad that they can't see how lame duckish they are before they get into office.
Why won't you people let the Amiga die an honorable death?
Die Amiga!!! Die!!!
Off the top of my head (and I freely admit that I could be 100% wrong) I would think that aerodynamics developed from fluid dynamics, which are much easier to observe and, until the invention of aircraft, were much more useful. As to the fluid dynamics, I again doubt that they developed from looking at fish. Most likely they developed by putting simple physical objects into a stream and looking at what happens. Add to that a lot of practical experience with boats and ships of all kinds and you have a pretty good base.
You're right. You are 100% wrong. The concept of flight was first concieved of, and attempting to imitate birds. Which is why so many people died in the attempt. I'm not at all sure where the fixed wing concept came from, but it was tested in wind tunnels, as well as on rocky hills soon to be covered in bloody piles of bodies. It wasn't until much much later, probably near WWII that fluid dynamics entered the picture at all. Wilber and Orvil were, after all, bicycle makers with a hobby.
Kaa, you seem to have a problem with the reviewer and it would probably be in your best interest and get help.
You guys drive me nuts. Take a product that is given away for free. Modify it against the wishes of the company that is trying to build a business model off of that product. Two years from now they'll be out of business and the Slashdot community will put them there.
Maybe if shashdot hackers worked with these people instead of against them they wouldn't be so reactionary.
Your commentor is kind of nuts, isn't he?
He doesn't comment on people killings, outside of the fact that it can be pretty cool.
He does comment on the meat industry, which he regards as, shall I use the word, "Evil."
I for one welcome the rating on the game. I don't believe children should play any of the games mentioned for the same reason I don't let children watch XXX-rated videos and "Faces of Death." Some things children simply can't handle. Sure a sixteen year old could handle all of this stuff, but you have to draw the line somewhere. How's about you draw the line at the same age where someone can be qualified to be carted off to some foriegn country to have their head blown off.
Your author is nuts. Animals, even those that can be pets, are food. We could eat them alive, but where's the humanity in that.
I read Slashdot for Industry related news stories, not political diatribes by intensly insane authors with an ax to grind. Leave the food politics at home.
If you read the article, you discover that the single biggest reason why people are fighting this is net congestion. This all points back to Napster.
If you take your dog into the woods and it attacks the cute fury little rodents and eats the birds and chases the deer so that nobody else can see nature in all of its glory, you shouldn't be surprised when somebody tells you you can't take your dog into the woods anymore.
If you utilize Napster to download a huge hoard of music onto a machine you probably don't own, on a network you are basically borrowing, at a University where they have better things to do than stand idly buy why you use the available bandwidth of the school to download music you shouldn't have anyway, then you shouldn't be surprised when they put blocks on how much bandwidth you are allowed to use.
If you work for a company and behaved this way most companies would just fire your Lilly White B---.
Another example would be people who smoke cigarettes. You sit at a table smoking a cigarette and then you blow smoke into the face of the person sitting next to you who still might be eating. If he/she asks you to quit you whine "you're infinging on my right to smoke." This person should not be surpised when somebody finally says, "Fine, but I'll make it against the law for you to smoke where I eat. That'll solve my problem."
My point is: Behave responsibly and people around you won't have a problem. Behave irresponsibly and people around you will find a means of forcing responsible behaviour.
By the way, the Internet isn't about free speach, its about communication. If you are alway shouting then you should be surprised when somebody muzzles you.
Okay, here's something good about the movie:
At least they stopped only half way though the book. Imagine how terrible it would have been had they attempted to include the bits about how a bunch of savages ended up taking over the whole universe. More importantly, John Travolta saved us having to watch hours and hours of advanced ecomonics and governments being discussed by people who had been living in tribes for a thousand years.
Oh wait, you wanted something about the movie. Think of what the movie says about Hollywood's belief in technology. To think that a thousand years from now you will be able to find even one hand held nuclear device is really just too astounding. But, yet, the movie would have use believe that technology will one day be so good and simple that even a back woods man-animal will be able to fly harrier jets or set off nuclear weapons. And better yet, libraries will be perfectly arranged so that someone walking in from the street will know where to look for harrier jets, nuclear missles or even Fort Knox.
Think of a world without decay where only the stuff you need to know can be found at the library.
This movie says a lot of really good things about technology. Were it not for the Psyclos things would be just perfect.
The Gravity Guy is a kook. He reminds me of myself when someone tells me theres a problem with my software. I say "That can't happen."
In point of fact, it did happen. The bones are there. The creatures lived. There is no evidence that indicates gravity has changed over a period of weeks, years, decades or even Ions. Certainly it can be said that the amount of space junk falling on the Earth has probably caused a marginal increase in Gravity over the past 200 million years.
Think about it though. As time went by the Dinosaurs got bigger not smaller.
There isn't any use throwing a bunch of math based on a weight lifter from Russia at the problem either. Nature has done some incredibly complicated things over time and Gravity Guys smallish understanding of Jurasic Physics and Physiology really can't compare or compete.
Gravity Guy has forgotten the number one rule of assumptions:
KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid!!!
Way wrong.
Intel's best engineers are over forty. Take a walk through one of there engineering facilities and most of the premo development jobs are owned by people who have been doing it a long time.
If Intel told you this it must be because they tend to hire a cadre of really young engineers with a wide variety of skills that they can burn out.
Intel uses youth for the same reason the military does. It doesn't matter if you are killed so long as you can carry the pack, run up the hill, and shoot the gun.
The very few engineers that survive the initial years of death march level productivity grow into very good engineers that make a fortune. They just don't work as hard.
Maybe you've stayed in the same place way too long.
Maybe you're an unproductive knigit without the good sense to know he should be in Insurance Sales.
I graduated eight years ago with a math degree and my salary has more than doubled. This without any credible sense of carear development.
You must be kidding. Just because you have the freedom to express something stupid doesn't mean that you should actually say it. Cults of all kinds of beliefs have existed in Europe for a thousand years. On the other hand, Nazi memorabilia tend to recall a time in history that for Eurpopeans is still very much a part of the cultural makeup. In Europe there are still people who remember the Nazis. This is not even on the same par as the U.S. wanting to ban exporting Encryption. This is simply using a law to prevent the auction of items that most members of a society find repugnant. This isn't a freedom of expression issue. Yahoo isn't expressing itself. This is an issue of self identity. If my country decides, and I decide to continue living there, that Nazi memorabilia is moraly reprehensible, and morever, should be as much hidden from public view as the full force of the law can require, then it should not be your right as a citizen of country USA to auction those items in my country against my and my countries will. In other words, your freedoms don't apply in my country. Remember, most countries don't have a bill of rights. Now, technically, what France is asking is impossible. However, due to the expansive nature of the net there will come a time in the future when the net does have logically defined geographical boundaries. When this happens it will be inforcable, as will other, more restrictive rules put in place by other countries. If you think I'm kidding then just check out what is happening on Yahoo's site itself. They have whole lists of links devoted to very specific geographical boundaries.
Once, while getting my gas tank replaced after having hit a rock which I thought was a paper bag, the auto-mechanic was looking at the removed fuel pump, dripping gasoline all over himself, and smoking a cigarette at the same time.
I didn't want to make him mad so I slowly backed as far away from him as I could get.
Then it dawned on him. "Joe," he called to a co-worker, "I've been smoking a cigarette while working with this gas tank." He laughed as if it was the funniest thing he'd ever done.
I wondered to myself, "if the man sets himself on fire, who was going to fix my car."
I own two computers that run both Linux and Windows. My modems don't work on either computer in Linux mode. What should I care what browser I'm using on Linux, I can't even access the WEB from my Linux box.
If you're viewing the Linux issue as an ongoing war with Microsoft, then I have news for you. You've already lost the war. Microsoft already owns the desktop market. Microsoft already owns the browser market. Microsoft already owns the word processor market.
The Linux advantage is not Apache or WEB Browsers or even the WEB. The Linux advantage is that it offers a choice. As Linux gets better, the choice becomes easier. As more people move toward a Linux environment, and Linux becomes more stable, the choice gets easier. As Microsoft continues to dink with their cost structure, and Linux continues to be free, the choice gets easier.
Oh, and don't worry about those sites that offer browser specific implementations, in a world where sites make money based upon access, any company denying service because of browser based incompatabilities is shooting itself in the foot.
While interesting to read, the commentor needs to take a longer view of history than the time since Linux arrived on the scene. The truth is, Microsoft has made the industry. Microsoft made the internet, and Microsoft is probably going to lead the industry for at least the immediate future. Don't get me wrong, I don't like Microsoft. I don't like what they do. I think that by and large their development staff tends to creatively borrow the best ideas from other sources.
I do remember though when my dad built a Digital Group computer and there was no operating system to run on it. I remember my first Apple II, and the only language available "Microsoft Basic." I remember that Microsoft bought MS-DOS because the original leader, the maker of "CPM" wasn't smart enough to sell it to IBM. If it weren't for Microsoft we would all be realing from the heavy boot of IBM, in a proprietary world where IBM not only owned the operating system, but the hardware design as well.
In time Microsoft has taken the best ideas of the computer age and placed them at the hands of people who couldn't even conceive of owning a computer twenty or thirty years ago.
The commentator noted that Mr. Gates thinks he had a lot to do with the internet explosion. The truth is, that is a well founded fact. It's true that most Server run on some variant of UNIX, but most of the consumers of that knowledge run on computers running Microsoft. If it weren't for Microsoft and their products, the internet would forever remain a playground of the intellictually elite ( E-Snobs ).
Fault Gates for a lot of things, but it is almost a sure thing, if you work in the industry, you owe your livelyhood to him.
While interesting to read, the commentor needs to take a longer view of history than the time since Linux arrived on the scene. The truth is, Microsoft has made the industry. Microsoft made the internet, and Microsoft is probably going to lead the industry for at least the immediate future. Don't get me wrong, I don't like Microsoft. I don't like what they do. I think that by and large their development staff tends to creatively borrow the best ideas from other sources.
I do remember though when my dad built a Digital Group computer and there was no operating system to run on it. I remember my first Apple II, and the only language available "Microsoft Basic." I remember that Microsoft bought MS-DOS because the original leader, the maker of "CPM" wasn't smart enough to sell it to IBM. If it weren't for Microsoft we would all be realing from the heavy boot of IBM, in a proprietary world where IBM not only owned the operating system, but the hardware design as well.
In time Microsoft has taken the best ideas of the computer age and placed them at the hands of people who couldn't even conceive of owning a computer twenty or thirty years ago.
The commentator noted that Mr. Gates thinks he had a lot to do with the internet explosion. The truth is, that is a well founded fact. It's true that most Server run on some variant of UNIX, but most of the consumers of that knowledge run on computers running Microsoft. If it weren't for Microsoft and their products, the internet would forever remain a playground of the intellictually elite ( E-Snobs ).
Faults Gates for a lot of things, but it is almost a sure thing, if you work in the industry, you owe your livelyhood to him.
It's widely regarded that Microsoft employ's superior programmers. Mostly though, what MS employs is hubris. They have this: "We know better than you" attitude that can drive novice programmers nuts. The truth with MS is that if you encounter a feature in their programs they tell you that it's your fault for not knowing how to use their programs. This is an attitude that stems from the insanity of their corporate king, Mr. Bill.
Any good programmer can pass certification, but it takes a really good programmer to know that everything he/she writes is not the best solution.
This is why Linux does so well. The people who put out the code know deep down that if their stuff is really good it will be accepted, and if it isn't it will be rewritten. More importantly, they have the self confidence to let thousands of people step through their code looking for bugs. Show me a Microsoft programmer willing to let somebody he's never met debug his stuff and I will show you a programmer who uses Linux without his bosses knowledge.
Kelly
Bullshit!
What are you going to do? Open Source all code used to run a nuclear generator, or the space shuttle, or even a cruise missle. Companies that write software programs for life cancelling projects tend to implement huge efforts to test/catch and repair software bugs. What you are saying is that you want some Joe nobody looking at the control software for a 747 and seeing if he can find a bug in it. I can just see being an engineer on that type of project. Having to tell six thousand people that line 2393 doesn't have a bug, it just looks like one.
Open source isn't the solver of all problems. It just replaces your current problems with a whole set of newer, more irritating problems.
Iv'e seen this article once before, something like a couple of months ago or last summer. To this man who values complexity I only have one thing to ask:
Why do you want to reinvent the wheel?
I've been deep into UNIX for over six years, and one of the things I like about it is that it always has something new to learn. This is good for me. What I don't like doing is having to discover how group A thought that their method of implementing 'ps' is better than group B, whose group I grew up with. I hate having to figure out exactly how Red Hat starts up and configures X, and then moving to Debian only to discover that they did something just a little different.
Now the author would like to dump the GUI, as he believes that it clouds the religious experience which is Linux. I can understand that. I like the GUI because for the most part it allows me to do more than I can do with just one window open.
HP-UX uses SAM to configure and maintain pretty much the whole machine. Without SAM I would have to delve deep into HP-UX and figure out how to do what somebody else has already discovered.
What I am trying to say is, I don't like doing what somebody else has already figured out how to do. Learning and knowledge are only benificial when they can be used to discover or create something which is truly unique.
Microsoft understands this. They've taken what is, in essence, an extremely complicated device and turned it into something which allows normal people to be creative without having to figure out all the stuff that somebody else has already had to learn.
Now I'm not a defender of Microsoft, and it is my sincere goal to replace everything I have from Microsoft in the next five years. I believe that with continued improvement of Linux and the KDE that it will be possible to convince my family that Linux is a good thing.
However, as I have no love for Red Hat, and I think that Debian's installation is easier and does give me more control about what goes onto my machine, I would greatly appriciate any improvements in their distribution that they can make.
What would be a deal breaker for this though is for the Linux comunity to fall under the sway of this article, and keep the complexity in the installation.
The goal should be that a ten year old could read the installation sheet and install without having to know all the ancillary crap that we are normally required to track. Harder still, it would be in Linux's best interest to become simple enough for my wife to install it without having to know anything. Then if the ten year old, or my wife, wanted to dive into the control and configuration of the system they could, otherwise they wouldn't have to worry about it.
Now for the author's assertion that Clueless Users would contact the author/maintainer of some program, that probably happens on occassion, however, it is more true that if a user is truly clueless, and he reaches a point where something doesn't work, he's probably just going to throw it away and go for something that doesn't consume so much of his time. Truly clueless users don't waste time contacting software authors, they most likely don't even know how. More imporantly, they are likely to tell others that they know that Linux is a bad experience, thus preventing the further spread of the operating system.
And remember this little thought. If Linux doesn't grow and get better and expand its market share, it will die as an operating system.