Although your argument is flawlessly correct, the point is that it's a bad idea. Java NCs are just as bad (arguably worse) than these WYSE terminals. Either way you're going to have terminals sitting around with outdated flashware. The fact that it would be the same with JVM doesn't make the Linux solution any better.
Well admittedly, none of the other popular distributions are exacly prone to crashing. And it's just as easy to customize them. The difference is that most of them come with their own little "preconfigurations", whereas slackware allows you the opportunity to do it yourself.
Well first of all 5 months is a little bit of an exaggeration. If you're replacing your machine every five months it's either (a) because you have money to burn or (b) because your work requires cutting edge technology, which most work does not.
And the only reason that regular PCs do have higher replacement rates than NCs is that they use local resources rather than remote ones, however there's no reason that a PC can't be used as an extra-functional NC.
Jeez, if something happened and the cooling system broke... man, that would suck. Although, admittedly, it's a better long term solution (ideally) than a fan.
At $600 in bulk, this things don't sound like a bargain. As much as I dislike the sub-$1000 PC market, it is there. Why would a company choose these machines over more versatile and powerful solutions like E-Machines, which run for about $800 w/monitor at 350 MHz?
How can you possibly assume that *any* code is completely stable. Marking something as stable just means that it isn't prone to crashing and that the system is worthy of production usage. There will still be the occasional bug in "stable" kernels and the process of finding them is called "testing" -- its an ongoing effort.
You might try www.linux.org and www.linux.com Both of them have a section about "What is Linux?" and they include information about the Open Source model. The descriptions aren't anything too in depth, so it should be just what you're looking for.
Who needs a monitor anyway? If there's one thing that WebTV has proven, it's that people who just want a set-top box to browse the web don't care about high-res displays. Let them use a television set, they've all got them.
That's quite the comment to post here at/. I know that there are hundreds of pretty well educated people here that can spout out tons of references to discredit you, Thompson, Tannenbaum, and every other person who's ever said something bad about Linux or even OSS in general.
Let's face it - for all the talk about how much FUD there is out there, the Linux community as a whole is just as guilty of it in reverse. God forbid there should be room for more than one OS in the desktop market. I've got Win98, NT, and Linux on the same machine and you know what? I use them all (ok, so mostly Linux, but that's not the point). They've each got a little place in my heart.
I wholeheartedly disagree with this poster about Linux's place in the OS heirarchy, but he makes a valid point - most of the stuff we read everyday (here and elsewhere) is written by people who're biased towards the operating system (or the license behind it). I'd really like to see some decent consumer reports about OSes that aren't written by oldhand UNIX players or NT-only Admins.
Standard Interface - That's Why
on
The Desktop Wars
·
· Score: 2
The reason we need *One* Interface and only one interface, is standardization. I absolutely hate the fact that when I'm using a GNOME theme, all my KDE windows look completely different. I hate the fact that Netscape's button/scrollbars/checkboxes look totally unlike the ones in KFM.
There are simply too many different toolkits being used out there and in order for Linux to become accepted as having a decent GUI, it needs to have a standard interface. That's the whole idea behind UI's isn't it? The idea that you can use every application the same way? Linux is getting closer, but it's simply not there yet.
As much as I disklike Microsoft's quality of software, their interface is just plain better because it's all the same. The same, of course, can be said for the MacOS. Linux needs a standard SDK/toolkit to work with. It will never become the mainstream OS without one.
What the hell is wrong with you? Do you think that calling someone a "stupidass idiot" is going to make your point any more correct? It's hot blooded irrational insults like that that make it harder to conduct reasonable discussions. Sure, his point may have been wrong, but wouldn't it have been easier to simply point that out? Do you feel like a bigger person now that you've called him a "dumbass"
Absolutely. As much as I love/. there's nothing that bugs me more than these sort of reactions. Sure, the article was stupid - it happens. Sometimes people say stupid things. But it almost goes without saying that this guy probably doesn't frequent slashdot, so why bitch to each other about it?
Um, how can Tux be argued to make sense? He's a friggin penguin and to the best of my knowledge, he has nothing to do with an operating system.
I like the Dragon. He's cute and colorful - just what a mascot should be. I'd like to see some nice 3d rendered penguins like this - the GIMP one is nice and traditional, but a little boring sometimes.
Ok so programmers use drugs. Or is it more likely that young programmers use drugs? Think about it for a minute - most companies hire fresh talent and fresh talent is usually under 30. Well what age bracket uses the most drugs? People under 30. It's not all that complicated.
That's true, in the last few years the amount of creativity in the software industry has been a little weak. Although this is a shame, I don't see how it's related to the Open vs Closed source argument. The free software that we praise so highly are mostly either clones of proprietary software or tools to make other tasks simples (such as scripts, wrappers, etc...).
Yes, of course we're essentially buying the same thing over and over again. That's how people work. Why do we buy new cars? Because the old one didn't work as well as the new one, most of the time. A new CD? Because we like it better than other CDs. New Word Processor? Because it checks my spelling and can understand my grammar better than my last one. See?
Occasionally though, there are very creative new applications released. Mosaic was a creative new application (gee, does that go without saying?). VisiCalc was a creative new application. Word97 isn't exactly new, but some of the components are creative and certainly useful. Because of this, I'll shell out the cash to upgrade my copy -- Ok, so my boss will shell out the cash to buy the upgrade, but you get the idea.
The PC market is not dead. People all over the world use PCs for millions of different reasons. Just because it's not a boom market, doesn't mean it's not alive. And although, admittedly, the cost of upgrades has risen ridiculously in the past few years, that doesn't mean that upgrades don't have their place. Software production costs money and someone has to pay for it.
That's not true - we do pay for our TV programming, just not with money. The amount of advertisements that the average person is subjected to in just an hour of primetime television is staggering. It's already a part of the Internet, do you want ads in your word processor and your filemanagers?
Now there are companies that are doing exactly that - giving out PCs to people for free and piping Ads to their screen over the internet. Yeah, that sounds like fun. C'mon, the TV industry is a crappy model. I hate Ads. Everyone hates Ads. If that's how you want your PCs to become "ubiquitous" then I'll stick to my typewriter, thanks.
I'd tend to agree with you there. I think it's safe to say that the market would be different without the existence of free software, but my point was that without proprietary software and expensive hardware - there would be no market. Simply put, it's these profit-oriented models that created the market for technology. If it had been cheap and free the entire time, people like Apple and Microsoft would've been driven out of business a long time ago.
The author (who's name I've already forgotten) made a valid point inside his FUD-boggled article. If all we had was opensource software and sub $500 PCs then the market for personal computer technology would quickly disappear.
No reason to get sarcastic about it - that's why we always come off as assholes to non-frequenters of/. Let's put it into terms:
1) Then OpenSource model works and (in most cases) it works well. OpenSource programmers will not starve.
2) Closed Source software models work too. And let's be honest - closed source programmers get paid more.
Sure, you can say "Well I get paid $500k a year and in my closet at home I hack away to make a better version of 'cat'." Good for you - it goes without saying that most of the time, it doesn't work that way. On the other hand, there are plenty of companies that are turning the paradigm on its head (such as the often-used example of RedHat).
Now, I don't use Windows unless I absolutely have to - let's make that very clear. Even still, I think Microsoft has a very clear right to do what they're doing (antitrust issues aside for now). If they, or anyone else, wants to sell the software that they spent their time on for a profit, then more power to them.
So what the hell am I talking about anyway? Don't berate others for trying to make money off their software. I mean: Can't we all just get along?
Let's be fair about this - although I totally agree that we're almost all pro-Linux/OpenSource advocates here, it's stupid to say that someone who's ideas differ should leave. So he likes Microsoft and isn't a big fan of Netscape... Big deal. That doesn't mean he's a henchman working under the wing of Bill Gates.
If two people agree on everything all the time, then one of them isn't necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
Although your argument is flawlessly correct, the point is that it's a bad idea. Java NCs are just as bad (arguably worse) than these WYSE terminals. Either way you're going to have terminals sitting around with outdated flashware. The fact that it would be the same with JVM doesn't make the Linux solution any better.
C'mon, the whole "First Post" thing is pretty immature and on top of that, you didn't even get to it on time. Sheesh.
Well admittedly, none of the other popular distributions are exacly prone to crashing. And it's just as easy to customize them. The difference is that most of them come with their own little "preconfigurations", whereas slackware allows you the opportunity to do it yourself.
I'll agree with you on the maintainance part - this machine looks pretty unlikely to break due to overuse.
Well first of all 5 months is a little bit of an exaggeration. If you're replacing your machine every five months it's either (a) because you have money to burn or (b) because your work requires cutting edge technology, which most work does not.
And the only reason that regular PCs do have higher replacement rates than NCs is that they use local resources rather than remote ones, however there's no reason that a PC can't be used as an extra-functional NC.
Jeez, if something happened and the cooling system broke... man, that would suck. Although, admittedly, it's a better long term solution (ideally) than a fan.
At $600 in bulk, this things don't sound like a bargain. As much as I dislike the sub-$1000 PC market, it is there. Why would a company choose these machines over more versatile and powerful solutions like E-Machines, which run for about $800 w/monitor at 350 MHz?
How can you possibly assume that *any* code is completely stable. Marking something as stable just means that it isn't prone to crashing and that the system is worthy of production usage. There will still be the occasional bug in "stable" kernels and the process of finding them is called "testing" -- its an ongoing effort.
Does the GPL extend to the logos as well? Are they free software? Can I change them to fit my needs?
You might try www.linux.org and www.linux.com
Both of them have a section about "What is Linux?" and they include information about the Open Source model. The descriptions aren't anything too in depth, so it should be just what you're looking for.
Who needs a monitor anyway? If there's one thing that WebTV has proven, it's that people who just want a set-top box to browse the web don't care about high-res displays. Let them use a television set, they've all got them.
That's quite the comment to post here at /. I know that there are hundreds of pretty well educated people here that can spout out tons of references to discredit you, Thompson, Tannenbaum, and every other person who's ever said something bad about Linux or even OSS in general.
Let's face it - for all the talk about how much FUD there is out there, the Linux community as a whole is just as guilty of it in reverse. God forbid there should be room for more than one OS in the desktop market. I've got Win98, NT, and Linux on the same machine and you know what? I use them all (ok, so mostly Linux, but that's not the point). They've each got a little place in my heart.
I wholeheartedly disagree with this poster about Linux's place in the OS heirarchy, but he makes a valid point - most of the stuff we read everyday (here and elsewhere) is written by people who're biased towards the operating system (or the license behind it). I'd really like to see some decent consumer reports about OSes that aren't written by oldhand UNIX players or NT-only Admins.
The reason we need *One* Interface and only one interface, is standardization. I absolutely hate the fact that when I'm using a GNOME theme, all my KDE windows look completely different. I hate the fact that Netscape's button/scrollbars/checkboxes look totally unlike the ones in KFM.
There are simply too many different toolkits being used out there and in order for Linux to become accepted as having a decent GUI, it needs to have a standard interface. That's the whole idea behind UI's isn't it? The idea that you can use every application the same way? Linux is getting closer, but it's simply not there yet.
As much as I disklike Microsoft's quality of software, their interface is just plain better because it's all the same. The same, of course, can be said for the MacOS. Linux needs a standard SDK/toolkit to work with. It will never become the mainstream OS without one.
What the hell is wrong with you? Do you think that calling someone a "stupidass idiot" is going to make your point any more correct? It's hot blooded irrational insults like that that make it harder to conduct reasonable discussions. Sure, his point may have been wrong, but wouldn't it have been easier to simply point that out? Do you feel like a bigger person now that you've called him a "dumbass"
Absolutely. As much as I love /. there's nothing that bugs me more than these sort of reactions. Sure, the article was stupid - it happens. Sometimes people say stupid things. But it almost goes without saying that this guy probably doesn't frequent slashdot, so why bitch to each other about it?
Um, how can Tux be argued to make sense? He's a friggin penguin and to the best of my knowledge, he has nothing to do with an operating system.
I like the Dragon. He's cute and colorful - just what a mascot should be. I'd like to see some nice 3d rendered penguins like this - the GIMP one is nice and traditional, but a little boring sometimes.
Ok so programmers use drugs. Or is it more likely that young programmers use drugs? Think about it for a minute - most companies hire fresh talent and fresh talent is usually under 30. Well what age bracket uses the most drugs? People under 30. It's not all that complicated.
That's true, in the last few years the amount of creativity in the software industry has been a little weak. Although this is a shame, I don't see how it's related to the Open vs Closed source argument. The free software that we praise so highly are mostly either clones of proprietary software or tools to make other tasks simples (such as scripts, wrappers, etc...).
Yes, of course we're essentially buying the same thing over and over again. That's how people work. Why do we buy new cars? Because the old one didn't work as well as the new one, most of the time. A new CD? Because we like it better than other CDs. New Word Processor? Because it checks my spelling and can understand my grammar better than my last one. See?
Occasionally though, there are very creative new applications released. Mosaic was a creative new application (gee, does that go without saying?). VisiCalc was a creative new application. Word97 isn't exactly new, but some of the components are creative and certainly useful. Because of this, I'll shell out the cash to upgrade my copy -- Ok, so my boss will shell out the cash to buy the upgrade, but you get the idea.
The PC market is not dead. People all over the world use PCs for millions of different reasons. Just because it's not a boom market, doesn't mean it's not alive. And although, admittedly, the cost of upgrades has risen ridiculously in the past few years, that doesn't mean that upgrades don't have their place. Software production costs money and someone has to pay for it.
That's not true - we do pay for our TV programming, just not with money. The amount of advertisements that the average person is subjected to in just an hour of primetime television is staggering. It's already a part of the Internet, do you want ads in your word processor and your filemanagers?
Now there are companies that are doing exactly that - giving out PCs to people for free and piping Ads to their screen over the internet. Yeah, that sounds like fun. C'mon, the TV industry is a crappy model. I hate Ads. Everyone hates Ads. If that's how you want your PCs to become "ubiquitous" then I'll stick to my typewriter, thanks.
I'd tend to agree with you there. I think it's safe to say that the market would be different without the existence of free software, but my point was that without proprietary software and expensive hardware - there would be no market. Simply put, it's these profit-oriented models that created the market for technology. If it had been cheap and free the entire time, people like Apple and Microsoft would've been driven out of business a long time ago.
The author (who's name I've already forgotten) made a valid point inside his FUD-boggled article. If all we had was opensource software and sub $500 PCs then the market for personal computer technology would quickly disappear.
No reason to get sarcastic about it - that's why we always come off as assholes to non-frequenters of /. Let's put it into terms:
1) Then OpenSource model works and (in most cases) it works well. OpenSource programmers will not starve.
2) Closed Source software models work too. And let's be honest - closed source programmers get paid more.
Sure, you can say "Well I get paid $500k a year and in my closet at home I hack away to make a better version of 'cat'." Good for you - it goes without saying that most of the time, it doesn't work that way. On the other hand, there are plenty of companies that are turning the paradigm on its head (such as the often-used example of RedHat).
Now, I don't use Windows unless I absolutely have to - let's make that very clear. Even still, I think Microsoft has a very clear right to do what they're doing (antitrust issues aside for now). If they, or anyone else, wants to sell the software that they spent their time on for a profit, then more power to them.
So what the hell am I talking about anyway? Don't berate others for trying to make money off their software. I mean: Can't we all just get along?
Let's be fair about this - although I totally agree that we're almost all pro-Linux/OpenSource advocates here, it's stupid to say that someone who's ideas differ should leave. So he likes Microsoft and isn't a big fan of Netscape... Big deal. That doesn't mean he's a henchman working under the wing of Bill Gates.
If two people agree on everything all the time, then one of them isn't necessary.