The poster of the Ask Slashdot is asking honest, legitimate quesions, and I've found many of the posted answers informative and interesting. I know the various BSDs exist and have glanced through material on the Web and on paper, but some of the applications that people have talked about have tempted me to put it on my 'experimental' box.
"What exactly do you like better about IE / Windows than Netscape / Linux?"
Wrong question. It is not up to users to tell developers what they want. It is the developers job to figure out what the users want. This is MS in a nutshell. They do market research to figure out what people want, implement it market it and get rich. It's a simple model. They don't let some geeks drag some buttons together and call it a browser, they have researchers specialized in designing GUIs to do that sort of stuff.
This question you asked is a clear demonstration of the arrogant attitude of software developer: "shut up you stupid user, we know what's best for you". UNIX is not an end user OS. It may become an enduser OS only if developers succeed in completely hiding the kernel and config file mess from users. The original poster whas right in observing that at this point Linux is an inconsistent mess compared with the win98/ie experience.
I hope these is one of the right questions that the GUI researchers you mention are asking. Sometimes they seem to make decisions about what people like wihtout asking them first.
Microsoft does have (smart and worthy) people doing GUI research, but I think many people would argue that this is more of an art than a science. The *nix world now has thousands of people doing practical research by releasing themes to the several existing desktop environments. You can choose how you want your computer to look and act, starting from any of many decent possible points.
People have different preferences and find different things "intuitive," not to mention their practical needs! So there are still "geeks dragging buttons together and calling it a browser," although probably with mandates for finishing dates, corporate aesthetics, etc. And while their result may be an acceptable choice (a lot of people like IE, say), expertise among designers does not equal acceptance or agreement of users. (Think Edsel.)
MS is probably a good fit for some people; sounds like it is for you. Great! I wish I was as happy with my computer... .
This question you asked is a clear demonstration of the arrogant attitude of software developer: "shut up you stupid user, we know what's best for you". UNIX is not an end user OS. It may become an enduser OS only if developers succeed in completely hiding the kernel and config file mess from users. The original poster whas right in observing that at this point Linux is an inconsistent mess compared with the win98/ie experience.
I honestly don't see asking the questions is "a clear demonstration of the arrogant attitude of software developer: "shut up you stupid user, we know what's best for you"" -- I'm not a developer by any means, but I actually would like those who are developing software (for any OS!) to both pay attention to users and create programs which respect what they want. If the original poster were to do say what features he likes best / dislikes most in the browsers he's used, it might help create a better browser.
I think failing to ask enough people those questions, or expecting users to like software or live with it anyhow is a more arrogant attitude.
And regarding the end-userness of UNIX / Linux... that's a thorny issue, but I think it's more complex than you make it sound. If you want to install / run Linux, you can do it very techy ways, or drooling-easy ways. For instance, pop Mandrake 6.1 into any recent PC, make a few choices, and BOOM. Not lots of rebooting like installing NT or 98. Your mileage may vary, but I find Linux much nicer to work with as a desktop OS than Win98 or NT, and I find it suits my needs well. If you don't, you don't... but you can change it, or in the case of a company, for instance, you can hire someone to change it without paying developers fees.
Berlin at this point is an experiment, it is years away from becoming serious competition for windows. apple, etc. XFree 4.0 is an incremental update over XFree 3.0. Sure its much better, but good enough?
Good question, but it demands a response of "Good enough for what?" X is Good Enough to run high-end graphics programs on workstations. I see comments on improvements to / problems with X all the time here on Slashdot, am unfortunately not savvy enough to understand most of these complaints -- but X has been refined over many years and (like I said, with my midle-to-low-end ATi video card) works charmfully.
That there are fewer cards supported than under Windows is the biggest complaint I can see about X Window (and for many of them, the "lack of support" is not utter, but only of acceleration and other proprietary features). This is changing rapidly, though -- look at the support Linux has gotten from ATi, nVidia, Matrox...
users just want to plug their computer in and use it like you do with an Apple. That is the ultimate userexperience (neither windows or linux provides it at this moment).
True that neither provides this at the moment, but then again, neither does Apple anymore, with the exception of the iMac. Apple's HI is leagues above MS's, but really...
I like to think of myself as somewhat more critical. I don't like MS as a company but I use their products anyway and not just because I absolutley have to. If I wanted I could install linux both at home and on my work. But I don't. Why? Windows provides all I need. It's the simple truth. From a ordinary user perspective a linux install would probably be a downgrade: flaky browser, decreased software functionality (WP for linux and star office are no alternatives for ms office for serious users), lack of games.
If it works for you, it works for you. We all have different needs. I'm not much of a gamer, and I hate the way Outlook and Word seem to crash all the time, not to mention how Word creates documents in inherently non-portable documents by default, has poorly chosen default "fuzzy-logic" settings for grammar-checking, capitalization, bullets, etc.
And as to whether StarOffice or WordPerfect are alternatives for "serious users," what do you mean? For several reasons, I don't agree, but what makes you say it? Some people may prefer the look / feel of WordPerfect to Word (I certainly do), but that aside there are alternatives of all sorts, and think one good clue of a user's seriousness would be his attention to portability and future cost. If I were to use Word for documents I wanted to share, I would be saving them in RTF or as HTML... books can be / have been written in emacs and other editors. Application is everything!
I've got no real trouble with MS as a company -- selling whatever they want to whoever wants it. Some of my favorite people work there, too. I object to threats and intimidation as poor sportsmanship and in some cases they seem to have broken contracts, reneged on promises, etc. (Ask anyone who bought an Alpha to run WinNT.) but my beef with Microsoft is mostly that they sell products which I find irritating and crash-prone. (I have no sympathy with AOL or Netscape whining that MS included a Web browser that they wrote and didn't want to install the competitors' products. That's not suprizing or immoral. Neither is integrating a Web browser with the OS. I also have no problem with them insisting resellers who want to load their OS. Tough cookies, contractural obligations, etc.)
Cheers,
timothy
(all of this on the assumption that this was not flamebait:) )
Because there is a great deal of Free / free software in the world, every time a tax-funded agency / department / division / administration settles on a proprietary format or computer system, they are building in future costs as well as paying a premium for the software in the first place. And they use tax dollars to pay for both.
Now don't get me wrong -- if they choose a free / Free software combination it doesn't remove the threat of future costs by any means. If an agency which has used MS Word and Outlook for 5 years switches to (say) Linux, AbiWord and open-source mail clients all of a sudden, there are training/re-training costs, there are incompletely amortized investments in current software, there are costs in wide-scale software upgrades, blah blah blah. If the closest Free / free stuff doesn't do *all* of the things it needs to independently, there may be additional proprietary software needed, even if it become a garnish instead of the main course.
However, an honest cost analysis would show that with closed products those things have to happen every few years (at least) anyhow, as the Outside World moves to the next (slightly file-incompatitble) version of Word, or Outlook, or...
With free / Free software, generally built on low-level standards and thus inviting interoperability so long as the Outside World will exchangte documents that meet these low-level standards, the potential cost is much lower, particularly when it comes to applications which may have to mutate to best meet the needs of a given organization.
(By "low-level standards" that I mean things like html and rtf... not just ASCII text, but also not Word 2007. There's probably a better description than "low-level"... )
Another aspect of government stewardship of money when it comes to spending on any software is that the government, unlike a business, does not have a practical incentive (except in the case of National Security, natch) to keep the code it uses proprietary, and has every incentive morally to be able to upgrade it cheaply. Unfortunately, government bodies in general have little practical reason to spend their IT budget wisely; they're not in the business of competition except in a wildly indirect way.
Finally (I know I keep saying it, but it's hard to avoid in this discussion!), since they're using tax dollars, they have an obligation to maximize the value of the money spent, because it belongs theoretically to the People it was taken from and is to be used for their benefit. When it comes to buying carpet for the government's buildings, that's hard to do one way or the other -- you benefit only if you walk on it. But with software, that's another matter. Anytime the government pays a million dollars to Microsoft for a turn-key solution instead of paying for an open-source project to do the same thing (Say, paying a team of programmers who write code, or combine existing and available source, to reach the same functionality), we all lose, except the favored company.
Cheers,
timothy
p.s. Anyone who thinks government agencies buying MS (or any other vendor) exclusively is "captitalism" should look into the meaning of Mercantilism!)
I just recently switched back to 'Doze and I'm actually loving it! It's *ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE* more efficient than any *nix environment I've experienced. And I consider myself a semi-old-school geek. I think it's time some slashdotters sucked it up and admitted that Microsoft actually has a pretty damned tight desktop and have helped move computing forward a hell of a lot from the days of X-Windows/Obscure Config Files. I actually am feeling a little scared right now at how much better Microsoft's desktop/browser is than the nearest competition
Sean:
What exactly do you like better about IE / Windows than Netscape / Linux?
Why do you like IE better? What features would you like to be supported in a browser for it to be as good as you find IE? Have you tried any of the other browsers available for Linux, and if so how did you think they stood up either to Netscape or to IE?
What makes Windows more efficient for you? (Desktop style? Inter-application consistency? Does it crash less for you? Better applications available for what you use your computer for?) It would be helpful for developers reading this list to know what users would like to see. [Note: I fall only into the second and not the first group.]
I think slashdotters in general (oh what a dangerous way to start a sentence!) do think Microsoft has a "damned tight" desktop, but that's not necessarily a compliment. It's so tight, in fact, that it can't be extended or modified as extensively as Linux or other GPL'd / UNIX-based system... MS users can't (for instance) choose between competing desktop managers; to some people this might be a good thing, to others bad.
Also, a lot of people would point out that "the days of X Window" are still in full swing -- XFree 4.0 is coming soon!:) But there are other movements in the *nix world as well; Berlin for one. In the MS world, any alternatives to the accepted desktop (with the exception of hacked desktops like... is it called "Light98"?) have to come from Microsoft, so it's harder to experiments to get off the ground.
In contrast, my own experience is that Linux circa mid-1999 is easier to install and more easily supports both my video card (ATi Xpert@Play 98) and my modem than Windows 98 or NT did. [Another disclaimer: I'm supremely non-intuitive with computers in general; if I weren't maybe I wouldn't note that difference.]
I think the potential of both TV and MP3 can easily be buried in the noise...
There are a lot of educational materials that *are* available on television (by broadcast, cable, videocassette) -- science shows, lectures by college professors, instructional tapes for all kinds of things, history shows... I don't have cable, but when I visit my father's place, I sometimes watch the history channel and the discovery channel.
In this case, I think audio cassettes and instructional CDs (and before that, remember language-learning records?) are a closer parallel -- things like language-learning are well-suited to an audio medium.
One of the great potential benefits of MP3 and other audio compression schemes seems to be in education, particularly language instruction, but also history, English and social studies... important speeches, readings of literature by the author, interviews with jounalists, statesmen, scientists... the possibilities are astounding.
Is anyone offering this sort of material (commerically or not) in MP3 format? It certainly would be nicer to fly to Europe listening to Essential Italian Phrases, Volume I on a Rio and a couple of smart media than with a walkman and 8 cassettes...
Also, they might not all be inspirational enough to package and sell at Barnes and Noble, but it would be great benefit if speeches and other audio artifacts in the public-domain were available in an archive, for researchers, students and the merely curious. The Nixon tapes! Inerviews with Abby Hoffman! Recordings of Thomas Edison! The War of the Worlds! (Still under copyright?)
This was his response to my suggestion about Linux support for DVD decoding under Linux with their hardware:
We are working on supporting Linux. I will let you know when there is any update.
Thank you for taking the time to send us your thoughtful suggestion. I will forward this to the product manager and engineers to keep on their to-do-list.
The general financial climate of the US is more robust and vibrant than that of any European country (correction invited!) -- VC is more accepted and more available.
The personal financial climate is also better in the U.S. Sure, there are odious Federal taxes, but they are lower (and therefore somewhat less odious than those in European countries Again, if any EuroCountries have lower taxes than the U.S. does, please correct me! Monaco, maybe?
The overall cultural climate in America is also still more individualist than that of any European country I'm familiar with; I'm not trying to make a case for or against individualism here:) ! but it seems to resonate with programmers. The assertion in this paragraph's first sentence is broad beyond all reasonability, but I'm sticking with it, ok? There is plenty of pressure for social conformity, plenty of factors that im Endeffekt* offically stratify American society -- but the State is a slightly smaller actor than in European countries. Too large nonetheless, but smaller.
So, I say WELCOME! ALOHA! WILKOMMEN!(Babelfish is not Finnish-friendly, and it seems to be giving me the wrong word for Spanish...
I looked at the Sigma Designs Web site (sigmadesigns.com) and found that there is a link for suggestions.
it is: arthur_bao@sdesigns.com
I sent Mr. Bao the following suggestion via email:
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 16:54:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Timothy Lord To: arthur_bao@sdesigns.com Subject: Interested in Linux Support for hardware DVD decoders
Dear Sir:
My name is Timothy Lord. I enjoy DVD movies (what a great format!), but I presently must use an external player rather than one installed in one of my PCs, because I prefer Linux or another free operating system to those made by Microsoft.
I urge you to consider developing (or helping fund the development) of drivers for your company's products under Linux or other UNIX-like operating systems. There is a large market of potential buyers who would be interested in buying hardware DVD decoders, if they could run them without switching operating systems.
For evidence, I would suggest looking at the site www.slashdot.org;whenever DVD is mentioned on Slashdot, there is an active discussion, and many posters want to know "WHen can I watch my new DVD movies under Linux?!"
If you can sell a DVD player that comes packaged with drivers which let it work under Linux (especially if you are the first company to do so!), you will have an appreciative audience -- the goodwill generated by the support for Linux shown by some other companies (such as ATi) has been fantastic.
Thank you for considering this suggestion; good luck with your products and company!
I'd like to see computers and household appliances in general become more user-aware. A mouse that detects you is a start. What about a phone that detects when you're asleep and silently routes calls to your answering machine if you are? And a monitor that's only on if you're sitting in front of it?
Sensitive technology is fun.
I agree -- I like things like this, but only when they work well, and "working well" is rare. Not the designers' fault exactly, more that people use technology of all sorts in individual ways.
The problem is that there are a lot of things to go wrong, because the logic that controls sensitive technology has to second-guess the user constantly. What does it mean that the mouse hasn't been touched for a while? Does it mean the user isn't interested in seeing menus? (Y / N)
The idea of a monitor that turns off when you're not in front of it, for instance, is an interesting one -- but what if you're playing a DVD on your monitor screen and sitting on your couch a bit further away?
Same with the phone that directs calls while you're sleeping to a (presumably silent) asnwering machine. It would be great... mostly. But what if you're relying on a phone call to wake you up, or there's a true emergency?
The catch with all of this "sensitive technology" is the difficulty of predicting inherently ambiguous possibilities, and providing easy escape mechanisms so users can enjoy the "dumb" way of doing thngs when that's what actually makes sense.
Sites like the User Interface Hall of Shame have done a good job gathering examples, but we all know of good ones -- UI designs (not just in computers, in all contexts) where the intended message is not well-expressed by the interface.
I recommend the book by Donald A. Norman called THe Design of Everyday Things to anyone designing anything (software, house, manual) which will be used by other people unfamiliar with its design. In fact, I think everyone should read this book! Everyone! Everyone!
But I always felt somewhat constrained by the tiny nubbins (nipples?)in-slots design. Yes, they make things liftable, but at the expense of some flexibility. And it's a farily small number of lego-blocks high that becomes unstable in other than totally-vertical orientation... (Towers are strong, but multi-piece crossbeams aren't.)
I enjoy blocks (the nice heavy finished-hardwood variety) for their infinite adjustability. My family (long story) a few years ago built several towers taller than any of us out of such blocks... it would take a lot of legos to match the scale.
Blocks also tend to come in rectangular, triangular, cylindrical and sometimes even conical (well, "knappy" at least). To get other than 90-degree angles in Legos always requires some sort of workaround (or is this no longer the case? I guess I've seen a few angled bases and roofs, but they always seemed like set-pieces rather than "normal" pieces...)
What I'd like to see is a system of blocks extensible (a system of locking pegs, maybe?) like legos, but without giving up smooth inter-block surfaces. With stretegically-placed little holes and matching hardware, you could selectively get the benefits of lego (like wheels!) without having to use tools to attach / detach them.
I never thought this would be a topic on Slashdot, but it's one that's been on my mind for a little while. Does anyone know of better block system?
(Note: Lego is also very protective of it's trademark and design; Sort of "closed source" if you think about it that way. The proprietary design is anothe thing that bothers me about legos; I like the fact that blocks are "compatible" with household objects, books, dominos, etc.)
dreamchaser asked: Does it really matter how many people are running Linux? I can see -some- value in it, but people seem far too concerned with 'market share'. A free OS shouldn't care about market share, as long as developers are coding for the OS (which they are).
I think it is significant, because the idea of a "critical mass" enters heavily into software development and public acceptance. If there were, say, 3 Linux users world wide, all in Linus' family;), there would be little incentive to code for Linux. But as you add zeros, it gets more and more attractive. 30! 300! 300,000,000!
That might be more of an issue to closed- than open-source programmers, but it still applies.
As far as public acceptance, well the past 12-18 months have seen huge leaps in public apprehension and understanding of Linux, even if it's overheard as "You heard 'bout this LYE-nucks doohickey?" Again, if it was just the Torvalds family sitting around the living room sending messages to each other with PINE, no story. But USA Today and Newsweek can cite geometric growth, or (soon) "a million registered users," or "the thousands of small businesses using Linux instead of (whatever operating system)."
That's why I think counting is a good idea. The numbers aren't everything (and as the other threads on here are mostly about) they're not easy to extrapolate. But they give a starting point!
"I cut payroll checks every two weeks for 600 people out of money that the company that I founded and run takes in as revenue on closed source. Don't fucking pretend that in twenty-five words or less that you can teach me anything about the relationship of the dynamics of motivation, money and passion. You can't even handle the fact that people should understand the heritage of the words they use. Go have another beer; it's the most significant thing you can do with the depth of your intellect.
Sorry, I don't much like alcohol. You can buy me some orange juice, though.
Do you really think the motivation you provide is in nothing but those 600 checks you cut twice a month? I doubt it. In fact, from this response it sounds like you can get pretty passionate.
Your argument relies on the premise that the best people can all (demonstrably and primarily) be motivated by money.
Without geting into the semantics of what constitutes motivation, we could probbaly agree that money is only one of many possible incentives to do just about anything. Some people want to feel powerful, some people want to do nothing but examine the world around them with curiosity, some people want to be known far and wide, some people want to pass on their genes as often as possible, et cetera. (Please, do enlighten us with your knowledge of Latin.)
I'm all for programmers getting money for the work they do, if that is the way they choose to define their worth. Just like I'm all for artists selling their work, if that's what they want to do. But any programmer who also (or only) creates work that is free for the use and perusal of others I think deserves commendation as well, if that is how to choose to release it.
ESR doesn't seem to be holding any whips (or handguns, a la Atlas Shrugged*) denying programmers compensation. He's just pointing out that Open Source can be a smart way for things to get done, because the open source method invites critique, review and improvement.
Your 7-year-old would probably understand; when you grow up you might too.
FatSean mentioned that neither Gateway nor Dell sold Athlon based systems.
I work indirectly (through an agency) for the one of these which rhymes with Hell, and that's true -- none to be expected in the next few months, either.:(
Below is the text of the letter I Sent to Michael Dell a little while ago; I believe it eventually sent, but I was amused to see that it was first returned by the mailer as having "permanent fatal errors"...
Subject: processor diversity vs. Intel dependence
Date: October 12, 1999 5:44:40 PM EDT
To: michael@dell.com
Dear Michael:
First of all, I own a (piddling) amount of Dell stock, but none in AMD, though that might soon change. I also work for an ad agency which does a lot of Dell work. [note: deleted the name of agency. tl]
Now: As far as I know, Dell uses Intel chips in every computer it builds. If that is not true, then the rest of this message is based on false premises and you can stop reading.
However, if Dell really uses no processors other than Intel, I think the company is worth less to me (and you) than it would if it also built systems with AMD chips, or even Cyrix chips.
Dell was screwed as much as anyone with the sudden *un*release of the anticipated 820 / Camino chipset; that fact alone should be enough evidence that being in bed with a sole provider is chancey. In the case of some other PC makers, though, some of their higher-end systems would be unaffected, because they are based on the AMD Athlon.
Dell finally preloads Linux (thank you!) at least on some systems, and even with a premium. You wouldn't stick with a single hard drive manufacturer or memory supplier, so why do it with the driving point of your systems, the CPU?
First, my qualifications: I am the world's least intuitive computer user. My iMac regularly crashes. It took me three days to install Win98, and a lot of household disharmony besides. I shout at my computers a lot. I've flubbed (though eventually installed) several flavors of Linux on various machines, as well as WinNT, Win95 and the aforementioned '98. Basically, I am no one you want near a computer unless you are a genius at fixing arcane problems that I don't know how I caused. After a few years of messing with Linux, I must admit that my level of knowledge is perhaps closer to Newbie than, say, your average 8-year-old with a month of Linux experience. I wish I were exaggerating, but I am the one all those Dummies books were written for, and I often wish they had one for even dumber people.
Now, ehough of the self-deprecation: I run Mandrake 6.1 on my machine (K6 233, 160(not a typo) MB of RAM), and for the past few months have had 6.0. I have not tried SuSE, and haven't tried the new Caldera (I had no luck with the 2.2, though -- I never got it on, despite the slick interface).
I consider Mandrake a flat-out miracle of engineering and design, with hats (ha ha) off also to Red Hat for providing the basis.
Mandrake auto-detected both fairly-recent (ATi XPERT@Play 98) and oldish (some random 2-meg card) video cards, cheap internal modem, all drives, etc.
The default is KDE, but there's Gnome as well. kppp allowed me to set up an Internet connection relatively painlessly. (Read the first paragraph, and then realize that it still took me a while to figure out, but hey -- it was easier than Windows by an order of magnitude.)
Again, I have not tried several other of the current distros to make a comparison (they might be as good, dso on't take this as knocking the new Caldera, or recent Slackware, or...), but I would definitely suggest Mandrake as easier than Red Hat and a good option for a first-time installer interested in getting a working Linux system quickly. (A lot of Slashdotters are big fans of Slackware, and if you're willing to face a steeper learning curve, it might be more *educational* to put that on instead. It took me a *long* time to figure out the installation, but that was a few years ago and it's matured a lot since then!)
And, if you are installing Linux for the first time, take a few hours and create as complete a picture (on paper) of your system's vital stats as you can -- remember, you'll need things like your monitor's V- and H-frequencies or frequency ranges, current information about how your hard drive is partitioned (this is important if you plan to dual-boot... one nice thing about not using Windows at all is the ease with which you can face reformatting at install time.:)
Also, I'd suggest at least skimming some books before you commit yourself to restarting with a boot floppy in the drive... Matt Walsh's Running Linux is excellent, and now in it's 3rd edition... and perhaps you've bought a book / distro combination -- some of those are very good too, like RedHat Linux Unleashed.
Good luck! Save existing files you want to have later somewhere safe! Hang up a punching bag to aim your energy at in the event of frustration! Dissolve! Dissolve! Okay!
Other people have already posted more complete replies, but one thing to notice is that British / UK usage is to use plural nouns with corporations. "Nike have released sales figures" is correct in British English. The phrasing might sound funny to Americans, who would probably feel more comfortable hearing "Nike has released sales figures."
Note too that Robin Hood and his Band of Merry Men can be thought of as 1 group (RH,MM), 2 groups (RH)+(MM), two collections of individuals (RH) + (MM1, MM2, MM3...MMX) or a single collection of individuals (RH, MM1, MM2, MM3... MMX). I like the third interpretation, because the characters other than Robin are individually interesting, but Robin Hood could survive as a character even without them.
Of course, whether Slashdot's editors ought conform to American idiom is another matter. I'd like to see them be consistent, and I offer my services as a copy editor.:)
Another poster said in response to the above post that [the reason you haven't seen AMD back any distribution of Linux] is they "don't have 2 pennies to rub together."
That's true enough, as things go (AMD seems to consistently release great chips which feature a "Lower than expected quarterly earnings" bug), but supporting a Linux distribution is not the same as throwing money in to a blender just to watch the pretty paper shred. In fact, AMD places advertisements (that's a very real cost of business!) and supporting a Linux distribution would be great advertising for them.
Now I work in advertising for a big one-syllable computer maker that rhymes with Hell and so far does not make any computers with AMD Inside, though I think they should.
If AMD would sink as much into a single distribution of Linux as it does in a few days of straightforward advertising, the returns would be large and lasting. A company which supports linux and makes what mainstream publications (like PC World) say is the fastest chip they've ever run in a desktop might have a great following...
Goodwill is more important than companies seem to realize, though.
But if say, SuSE linux were to feature a big graphic on the box that said "This product rules with Athlon processors!" (it's sort of plausible, considering that AMD has at least one factory in Germany), I think it would be cool.
This is hilarious idea. If anyone from AMD or associated ad agencies is listening / reading, please follow up on this!
That show was vastly underrated; I haven't thought of it in many years. There could be a great funny ad series based on it... make fun of pompous, 'we're so offical' Intel, which Intel's bunnysuits are a lame attempt at...
Suuuuuure, it does. Right. "Tell me again how sheep's bladders may be used to prevent earthquakes..."
Responding to the entire post would overlap with the comments arelready posted (and as Mark Twain would say, would annoy the pig), but a few things stand out as too silly to let fly (and make me suspect that the whole things was flamebait anyhow... ) So, OK:
- "... pesticide-laden, hormone-laced food"? Ah, strictly a capitalist invention there, you betcha! If you want some good wholesome pollution, or were wondering what the practical upshot might be between mostly-capitalism and sort-of-socialism, visit the former East and West Germanies, or the countryside outside of Prague, or many many places in the former Soviet Union where toxic (including radioactive) waste was brazenly poured into lakes and rivers. TMI and the Love Canal have nothing on consequence-free socialist management policies.
- Time wasted in traffic jams? Surely you jest. Would you rather be waiting 10 years for a car, or queuing for *bread*? How about signing up 6 or 10 years in advance to get a telephone, and paying your brethren electrician a few bribes along the way? And besides, you don't have to take that job if you don't want it. Sorry. ("Aw daddy, I like all these diamonds, but they're so heavy! Why did you make me take so many?!") There's no pleasing some people, I guess.
Get this much straight: Capitalism is actually fairly agnostic about what you *do* within it; it defines certain things as moral (free exchange of goods, including services, including philosophy, including whiny, illogical peaons to governmental oversight and meddling in everything, etc.) and after that, you're on your own to find the path you think is best. Captitalism defines possibilities; socialism draws up job lists.
To slightly contradict what I wrote earlier, I wonder if this would be because the United States was ahead of Europe, so European carriers ended up adopting a later, more advanced digital cellphone protocol.
This is an interesting point.
People have often pointed to the post-WWII development of Japan (and just as spectacularly, West Germany's Wirtschaftswunder -- economic miracle -- of the 50's) as being in part the result of the *destruction* of their infrastructure, and resultant rebuilding. "From scratch" may be an exaggeration, but it approaches truth.
In a sense, because the Allies (esp. North America, where no combat took place, AFAIK) *won* the war, and had in the end less to rebuild, America et al remained more fragmented / 'inertial' in their various standards (goes this theory) as well as in other aspects.
I think this theory has a lot of truth, but at the same time, the conclusions to be drawn from it are not clear. A lot of people are in favor of government imposed standards, the more the merrier, and there certainly are tons of such standards to choose from;)
However: I think the government ought to be responsible for as little as possible, and in the case of all sorts of standards should follow this basic rule. I'm happy to let the French (or the international consortium whose name I forget) define the metric units, and let the US government define US measures in either explicit or implicit reference to these -- and that's already been done. Interesting book by John Lord called (I think) "Sizes - how big or small things really are." Beyond that, let the market decide.
What role officialdom should play in measures and standards is an interesting topic; it's one of the few places I see a positive (but minimal) role for government as an arbiter and archivist.
Asking / expecting government to come up with optimal engineering solutions though is a very bad idea, and the convenience of standardization is not worth accepting imposed standards over experimentation and freedom to innovate. (Sorry if tht makes me sound like a Microsoft employee -- I'm not! -- but I hope it also makes me sound like a Free software advocate, which I am.)
Slashdot Mirror
Good to see this happening in some corner of the government, at least!
tokengeekgrrl -- thanks for adding to the case for Free / free based on real-world costs in addition to philisophical wholesomness.
:)
timothy
Well said, phred!
The poster of the Ask Slashdot is asking honest, legitimate quesions, and I've found many of the posted answers informative and interesting. I know the various BSDs exist and have glanced through material on the Web and on paper, but some of the applications that people have talked about have tempted me to put it on my 'experimental' box.
So "phhhht" to the haughty objections!
timothy
I hope these is one of the right questions that the GUI researchers you mention are asking. Sometimes they seem to make decisions about what people like wihtout asking them first.
Microsoft does have (smart and worthy) people doing GUI research, but I think many people would argue that this is more of an art than a science. The *nix world now has thousands of people doing practical research by releasing themes to the several existing desktop environments. You can choose how you want your computer to look and act, starting from any of many decent possible points.
People have different preferences and find different things "intuitive," not to mention their practical needs! So there are still "geeks dragging buttons together and calling it a browser," although probably with mandates for finishing dates, corporate aesthetics, etc. And while their result may be an acceptable choice (a lot of people like IE, say), expertise among designers does not equal acceptance or agreement of users. (Think Edsel.)
MS is probably a good fit for some people; sounds like it is for you. Great! I wish I was as happy with my computer
I honestly don't see asking the questions is "a clear demonstration of the arrogant attitude of software developer: "shut up you stupid user, we know what's best for you"" -- I'm not a developer by any means, but I actually would like those who are developing software (for any OS!) to both pay attention to users and create programs which respect what they want. If the original poster were to do say what features he likes best / dislikes most in the browsers he's used, it might help create a better browser.
I think failing to ask enough people those questions, or expecting users to like software or live with it anyhow is a more arrogant attitude.
And regarding the end-userness of UNIX / Linux
Good question, but it demands a response of "Good enough for what?" X is Good Enough to run high-end graphics programs on workstations. I see comments on improvements to / problems with X all the time here on Slashdot, am unfortunately not savvy enough to understand most of these complaints -- but X has been refined over many years and (like I said, with my midle-to-low-end ATi video card) works charmfully.
That there are fewer cards supported than under Windows is the biggest complaint I can see about X Window (and for many of them, the "lack of support" is not utter, but only of acceleration and other proprietary features). This is changing rapidly, though -- look at the support Linux has gotten from ATi, nVidia, Matrox
True that neither provides this at the moment, but then again, neither does Apple anymore, with the exception of the iMac. Apple's HI is leagues above MS's, but really
If it works for you, it works for you. We all have different needs. I'm not much of a gamer, and I hate the way Outlook and Word seem to crash all the time, not to mention how Word creates documents in inherently non-portable documents by default, has poorly chosen default "fuzzy-logic" settings for grammar-checking, capitalization, bullets, etc.
And as to whether StarOffice or WordPerfect are alternatives for "serious users," what do you mean? For several reasons, I don't agree, but what makes you say it? Some people may prefer the look / feel of WordPerfect to Word (I certainly do), but that aside there are alternatives of all sorts, and think one good clue of a user's seriousness would be his attention to portability and future cost. If I were to use Word for documents I wanted to share, I would be saving them in RTF or as HTML
I've got no real trouble with MS as a company -- selling whatever they want to whoever wants it. Some of my favorite people work there, too. I object to threats and intimidation as poor sportsmanship and in some cases they seem to have broken contracts, reneged on promises, etc. (Ask anyone who bought an Alpha to run WinNT.) but my beef with Microsoft is mostly that they sell products which I find irritating and crash-prone. (I have no sympathy with AOL or Netscape whining that MS included a Web browser that they wrote and didn't want to install the competitors' products. That's not suprizing or immoral. Neither is integrating a Web browser with the OS. I also have no problem with them insisting resellers who want to load their OS. Tough cookies, contractural obligations, etc.)
Cheers,
timothy
(all of this on the assumption that this was not flamebait
I've been thinking about this topic for a while.
...
... not just ASCII text, but also not Word 2007. There's probably a better description than "low-level" ... )
Because there is a great deal of Free / free software in the world, every time a tax-funded agency / department / division / administration settles on a proprietary format or computer system, they are building in future costs as well as paying a premium for the software in the first place. And they use tax dollars to pay for both.
Now don't get me wrong -- if they choose a free / Free software combination it doesn't remove the threat of future costs by any means. If an agency which has used MS Word and Outlook for 5 years switches to (say) Linux, AbiWord and open-source mail clients all of a sudden, there are training/re-training costs, there are incompletely amortized investments in current software, there are costs in wide-scale software upgrades, blah blah blah. If the closest Free / free stuff doesn't do *all* of the things it needs to independently, there may be additional proprietary software needed, even if it become a garnish instead of the main course.
However, an honest cost analysis would show that with closed products those things have to happen every few years (at least) anyhow, as the Outside World moves to the next (slightly file-incompatitble) version of Word, or Outlook, or
With free / Free software, generally built on low-level standards and thus inviting interoperability so long as the Outside World will exchangte documents that meet these low-level standards, the potential cost is much lower, particularly when it comes to applications which may have to mutate to best meet the needs of a given organization.
(By "low-level standards" that I mean things like html and rtf
Another aspect of government stewardship of money when it comes to spending on any software is that the government, unlike a business, does not have a practical incentive (except in the case of National Security, natch) to keep the code it uses proprietary, and has every incentive morally to be able to upgrade it cheaply. Unfortunately, government bodies in general have little practical reason to spend their IT budget wisely; they're not in the business of competition except in a wildly indirect way.
Finally (I know I keep saying it, but it's hard to avoid in this discussion!), since they're using tax dollars, they have an obligation to maximize the value of the money spent, because it belongs theoretically to the People it was taken from and is to be used for their benefit. When it comes to buying carpet for the government's buildings, that's hard to do one way or the other -- you benefit only if you walk on it. But with software, that's another matter. Anytime the government pays a million dollars to Microsoft for a turn-key solution instead of paying for an open-source project to do the same thing (Say, paying a team of programmers who write code, or combine existing and available source, to reach the same functionality), we all lose, except the favored company.
Cheers,
timothy
p.s. Anyone who thinks government agencies buying MS (or any other vendor) exclusively is "captitalism" should look into the meaning of Mercantilism!)
Sean:
What exactly do you like better about IE / Windows than Netscape / Linux?
Why do you like IE better? What features would you like to be supported in a browser for it to be as good as you find IE? Have you tried any of the other browsers available for Linux, and if so how did you think they stood up either to Netscape or to IE?
What makes Windows more efficient for you? (Desktop style? Inter-application consistency? Does it crash less for you? Better applications available for what you use your computer for?) It would be helpful for developers reading this list to know what users would like to see. [Note: I fall only into the second and not the first group.]
I think slashdotters in general (oh what a dangerous way to start a sentence!) do think Microsoft has a "damned tight" desktop, but that's not necessarily a compliment. It's so tight, in fact, that it can't be extended or modified as extensively as Linux or other GPL'd / UNIX-based system
Also, a lot of people would point out that "the days of X Window" are still in full swing -- XFree 4.0 is coming soon!
In contrast, my own experience is that Linux circa mid-1999 is easier to install and more easily supports both my video card (ATi Xpert@Play 98) and my modem than Windows 98 or NT did. [Another disclaimer: I'm supremely non-intuitive with computers in general; if I weren't maybe I wouldn't note that difference.]
Cheers,
timothy
I think the potential of both TV and MP3 can easily be buried in the noise ...
... I don't have cable, but when I visit my father's place, I sometimes watch the history channel and the discovery channel.
There are a lot of educational materials that *are* available on television (by broadcast, cable, videocassette) -- science shows, lectures by college professors, instructional tapes for all kinds of things, history shows
In this case, I think audio cassettes and instructional CDs (and before that, remember language-learning records?) are a closer parallel -- things like language-learning are well-suited to an audio medium.
timothy
One of the great potential benefits of MP3 and other audio compression schemes seems to be in education, particularly language instruction, but also history, English and social studies ... important speeches, readings of literature by the author, interviews with jounalists, statesmen, scientists ... the possibilities are astounding.
...
Is anyone offering this sort of material (commerically or not) in MP3 format? It certainly would be nicer to fly to Europe listening to Essential Italian Phrases, Volume I on a Rio and a couple of smart media than with a walkman and 8 cassettes
Also, they might not all be inspirational enough to package and sell at Barnes and Noble, but it would be great benefit if speeches and other audio artifacts in the public-domain were available in an archive, for researchers, students and the merely curious. The Nixon tapes! Inerviews with Abby Hoffman! Recordings of Thomas Edison! The War of the Worlds! (Still under copyright?)
Them's my 2-bitskis
timothy
That sounds good to me!
timothy
And whyever they want to?
:) ! but it seems to resonate with programmers. The assertion in this paragraph's first sentence is broad beyond all reasonability, but I'm sticking with it, ok? There is plenty of pressure for social conformity, plenty of factors that im Endeffekt* offically stratify American society -- but the State is a slightly smaller actor than in European countries. Too large nonetheless, but smaller.
...
The general financial climate of the US is more robust and vibrant than that of any European country (correction invited!) -- VC is more accepted and more available.
The personal financial climate is also better in the U.S. Sure, there are odious Federal taxes, but they are lower (and therefore somewhat less odious than those in European countries Again, if any EuroCountries have lower taxes than the U.S. does, please correct me! Monaco, maybe?
The overall cultural climate in America is also still more individualist than that of any European country I'm familiar with; I'm not trying to make a case for or against individualism here
So, I say WELCOME! ALOHA! WILKOMMEN!(Babelfish is not Finnish-friendly, and it seems to be giving me the wrong word for Spanish
Cheers,
timothy
*(Ja?)
I looked at the Sigma Designs Web site (sigmadesigns.com) and found that there is a link for suggestions.
it is: arthur_bao@sdesigns.com
I sent Mr. Bao the following suggestion via email:
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 16:54:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Timothy Lord
To: arthur_bao@sdesigns.com
Subject: Interested in Linux Support for hardware DVD decoders
Dear Sir:
My name is Timothy Lord. I enjoy DVD movies (what a great format!), but I presently must use an external player rather than one installed in one of my PCs, because I prefer Linux or another free operating system to those made by Microsoft.
I urge you to consider developing (or helping fund the development) of drivers for your company's products under Linux or other UNIX-like operating systems. There is a large market of potential buyers who would be interested in buying hardware DVD decoders, if they could run them without switching operating systems.
For evidence, I would suggest looking at the site www.slashdot.org;whenever DVD is mentioned on Slashdot, there is an active discussion, and many posters want to know "WHen can I watch my new DVD movies under Linux?!"
If you can sell a DVD player that comes packaged with drivers which let it work under Linux (especially if you are the first company to do so!), you will have an appreciative audience -- the goodwill generated by the support for Linux shown by some other companies (such as ATi) has been fantastic.
Thank you for considering this suggestion; good luck with your products and company!
Sincerely,
Timothy Lord
timothy@monkey.org
I agree -- I like things like this, but only when they work well, and "working well" is rare. Not the designers' fault exactly, more that people use technology of all sorts in individual ways.
The problem is that there are a lot of things to go wrong, because the logic that controls sensitive technology has to second-guess the user constantly. What does it mean that the mouse hasn't been touched for a while? Does it mean the user isn't interested in seeing menus? (Y / N)
The idea of a monitor that turns off when you're not in front of it, for instance, is an interesting one -- but what if you're playing a DVD on your monitor screen and sitting on your couch a bit further away?
Same with the phone that directs calls while you're sleeping to a (presumably silent) asnwering machine. It would be great
The catch with all of this "sensitive technology" is the difficulty of predicting inherently ambiguous possibilities, and providing easy escape mechanisms so users can enjoy the "dumb" way of doing thngs when that's what actually makes sense.
Sites like the User Interface Hall of Shame have done a good job gathering examples, but we all know of good ones -- UI designs (not just in computers, in all contexts) where the intended message is not well-expressed by the interface.
I recommend the book by Donald A. Norman called THe Design of Everyday Things to anyone designing anything (software, house, manual) which will be used by other people unfamiliar with its design. In fact, I think everyone should read this book! Everyone! Everyone!
Just a thought,
timothy
Thanks for the information about Technics.
...
They're definitely a step above Lego in serveral ways (surprized I hadn't seen them on thee discussion yet, Capsella(sp?), too.)
Blocks still seem purer to me, but like you say, these actually do have an attractive connetion mechanism
timothy
I will not knock legos -- I like them a lot.
... (Towers are strong, but multi-piece crossbeams aren't.)
... it would take a lot of legos to match the scale.
...)
But I always felt somewhat constrained by the tiny nubbins (nipples?)in-slots design. Yes, they make things liftable, but at the expense of some flexibility. And it's a farily small number of lego-blocks high that becomes unstable in other than totally-vertical orientation
I enjoy blocks (the nice heavy finished-hardwood variety) for their infinite adjustability. My family (long story) a few years ago built several towers taller than any of us out of such blocks
Blocks also tend to come in rectangular, triangular, cylindrical and sometimes even conical (well, "knappy" at least). To get other than 90-degree angles in Legos always requires some sort of workaround (or is this no longer the case? I guess I've seen a few angled bases and roofs, but they always seemed like set-pieces rather than "normal" pieces
What I'd like to see is a system of blocks extensible (a system of locking pegs, maybe?) like legos, but without giving up smooth inter-block surfaces. With stretegically-placed little holes and matching hardware, you could selectively get the benefits of lego (like wheels!) without having to use tools to attach / detach them.
I never thought this would be a topic on Slashdot, but it's one that's been on my mind for a little while. Does anyone know of better block system?
(Note: Lego is also very protective of it's trademark and design; Sort of "closed source" if you think about it that way. The proprietary design is anothe thing that bothers me about legos; I like the fact that blocks are "compatible" with household objects, books, dominos, etc.)
Heh;)
...
I was just thinking "excitement," not factorials
timothy
dreamchaser asked:
;), there would be little incentive to code for Linux. But as you add zeros, it gets more and more attractive. 30! 300! 300,000,000!
Does it really matter how many people are running Linux? I can see -some- value in it, but people seem far too concerned with 'market share'. A free OS shouldn't care about market share, as long as developers are coding for the OS (which they are).
I think it is significant, because the idea of a "critical mass" enters heavily into software development and public acceptance. If there were, say, 3 Linux users world wide, all in Linus' family
That might be more of an issue to closed- than open-source programmers, but it still applies.
As far as public acceptance, well the past 12-18 months have seen huge leaps in public apprehension and understanding of Linux, even if it's overheard as "You heard 'bout this LYE-nucks doohickey?" Again, if it was just the Torvalds family sitting around the living room sending messages to each other with PINE, no story. But USA Today and Newsweek can cite geometric growth, or (soon) "a million registered users," or "the thousands of small businesses using Linux instead of (whatever operating system)."
That's why I think counting is a good idea. The numbers aren't everything (and as the other threads on here are mostly about) they're not easy to extrapolate. But they give a starting point!
timothy
Sorry, I don't much like alcohol. You can buy me some orange juice, though.
Do you really think the motivation you provide is in nothing but those 600 checks you cut twice a month? I doubt it. In fact, from this response it sounds like you can get pretty passionate.
timothy
To the A.C. who released this stream of vitriol:
Your argument relies on the premise that the best people can all (demonstrably and primarily) be motivated by money.
Without geting into the semantics of what constitutes motivation, we could probbaly agree that money is only one of many possible incentives to do just about anything. Some people want to feel powerful, some people want to do nothing but examine the world around them with curiosity, some people want to be known far and wide, some people want to pass on their genes as often as possible, et cetera. (Please, do enlighten us with your knowledge of Latin.)
I'm all for programmers getting money for the work they do, if that is the way they choose to define their worth. Just like I'm all for artists selling their work, if that's what they want to do. But any programmer who also (or only) creates work that is free for the use and perusal of others I think deserves commendation as well, if that is how to choose to release it.
ESR doesn't seem to be holding any whips (or handguns, a la Atlas Shrugged*) denying programmers compensation. He's just pointing out that Open Source can be a smart way for things to get done, because the open source method invites critique, review and improvement.
Your 7-year-old would probably understand; when you grow up you might too.
Cordially,
timothy
*(Though he does as a private citizen.)
FatSean mentioned that neither Gateway nor Dell sold Athlon based systems.
:(
...
... ;)
I work indirectly (through an agency) for the one of these which rhymes with Hell, and that's true -- none to be expected in the next few months, either.
Below is the text of the letter I Sent to Michael Dell a little while ago; I believe it eventually sent, but I was amused to see that it was first returned by the mailer as having "permanent fatal errors"
Subject:
processor diversity vs. Intel dependence
Date:
October 12, 1999 5:44:40 PM EDT
To:
michael@dell.com
Dear Michael:
First of all, I own a (piddling) amount of Dell stock, but none in AMD, though that might soon change. I also work for an ad agency which does a lot of Dell work. [note: deleted the name of agency. tl]
Now: As far as I know, Dell uses Intel chips in every computer it builds. If that is not true, then the rest of this message is based on false premises and you can stop reading.
However, if Dell really uses no processors other than Intel, I think the company is worth less to me (and you) than it would if it also built systems with AMD chips, or even Cyrix chips.
Dell was screwed as much as anyone with the sudden *un*release of the anticipated 820 / Camino chipset; that fact alone should be enough evidence that being in bed with a sole provider is chancey. In the case of some other PC makers, though, some of their higher-end systems would be unaffected, because they are based on the AMD Athlon.
Dell finally preloads Linux (thank you!) at least on some systems, and even with a premium. You wouldn't stick with a single hard drive manufacturer or memory supplier, so why do it with the driving point of your systems, the
CPU?
Cordially,
Timothy Lord
No response, so far
timothy
First, my qualifications: I am the world's least intuitive computer user. My iMac regularly crashes. It took me three days to install Win98, and a lot of household disharmony besides. I shout at my computers a lot. I've flubbed (though eventually installed) several flavors of Linux on various machines, as well as WinNT, Win95 and the aforementioned '98. Basically, I am no one you want near a computer unless you are a genius at fixing arcane problems that I don't know how I caused. After a few years of messing with Linux, I must admit that my level of knowledge is perhaps closer to Newbie than, say, your average 8-year-old with a month of Linux experience. I wish I were exaggerating, but I am the one all those Dummies books were written for, and I often wish they had one for even dumber people.
...), but I would definitely suggest Mandrake as easier than Red Hat and a good option for a first-time installer interested in getting a working Linux system quickly. (A lot of Slashdotters are big fans of Slackware, and if you're willing to face a steeper learning curve, it might be more *educational* to put that on instead. It took me a *long* time to figure out the installation, but that was a few years ago and it's matured a lot since then!)
... one nice thing about not using Windows at all is the ease with which you can face reformatting at install time.:)
... Matt Walsh's Running Linux is excellent, and now in it's 3rd edition ... and perhaps you've bought a book / distro combination -- some of those are very good too, like RedHat Linux Unleashed.
Now, ehough of the self-deprecation: I run Mandrake 6.1 on my machine (K6 233, 160(not a typo) MB of RAM), and for the past few months have had 6.0. I have not tried SuSE, and haven't tried the new Caldera (I had no luck with the 2.2, though -- I never got it on, despite the slick interface).
I consider Mandrake a flat-out miracle of engineering and design, with hats (ha ha) off also to Red Hat for providing the basis.
Mandrake auto-detected both fairly-recent (ATi XPERT@Play 98) and oldish (some random 2-meg card) video cards, cheap internal modem, all drives, etc.
The default is KDE, but there's Gnome as well. kppp allowed me to set up an Internet connection relatively painlessly. (Read the first paragraph, and then realize that it still took me a while to figure out, but hey -- it was easier than Windows by an order of magnitude.)
Again, I have not tried several other of the current distros to make a comparison (they might be as good, dso on't take this as knocking the new Caldera, or recent Slackware, or
And, if you are installing Linux for the first time, take a few hours and create as complete a picture (on paper) of your system's vital stats as you can -- remember, you'll need things like your monitor's V- and H-frequencies or frequency ranges, current information about how your hard drive is partitioned (this is important if you plan to dual-boot
Also, I'd suggest at least skimming some books before you commit yourself to restarting with a boot floppy in the drive
Good luck! Save existing files you want to have later somewhere safe! Hang up a punching bag to aim your energy at in the event of frustration! Dissolve! Dissolve! Okay!
timothy
Other people have already posted more complete replies, but one thing to notice is that British / UK usage is to use plural nouns with corporations. "Nike have released sales figures" is correct in British English. The phrasing might sound funny to Americans, who would probably feel more comfortable hearing "Nike has released sales figures."
...MMX) or a single collection of individuals (RH, MM1, MM2, MM3 ... MMX). I like the third interpretation, because the characters other than Robin are individually interesting, but Robin Hood could survive as a character even without them.
:)
Note too that Robin Hood and his Band of Merry Men can be thought of as 1 group (RH,MM), 2 groups (RH)+(MM), two collections of individuals (RH) + (MM1, MM2, MM3
Collective nouns -- whoah, dude! Heavy, heady, interesting, debateable.
Of course, whether Slashdot's editors ought conform to American idiom is another matter. I'd like to see them be consistent, and I offer my services as a copy editor.
timothy
Another poster said in response to the above post that [the reason you haven't seen AMD back any distribution of Linux] is they "don't have 2 pennies to rub together."
...
That's true enough, as things go (AMD seems to consistently release great chips which feature a "Lower than expected quarterly earnings" bug), but supporting a Linux distribution is not the same as throwing money in to a blender just to watch the pretty paper shred. In fact, AMD places advertisements (that's a very real cost of business!) and supporting a Linux distribution would be great advertising for them.
Now I work in advertising for a big one-syllable computer maker that rhymes with Hell and so far does not make any computers with AMD Inside, though I think they should.
If AMD would sink as much into a single distribution of Linux as it does in a few days of straightforward advertising, the returns would be large and lasting. A company which supports linux and makes what mainstream publications (like PC World) say is the fastest chip they've ever run in a desktop might have a great following
Goodwill is more important than companies seem to realize, though.
But if say, SuSE linux were to feature a big graphic on the box that said "This product rules with Athlon processors!" (it's sort of plausible, considering that AMD has at least one factory in Germany), I think it would be cool.
Just a thought. Anyone from AMD listening?
timothy
This is hilarious idea. If anyone from AMD or associated ad agencies is listening / reading, please follow up on this!
... make fun of pompous, 'we're so offical' Intel, which Intel's bunnysuits are a lame attempt at ...
That show was vastly underrated; I haven't thought of it in many years. There could be a great funny ad series based on it
"Capitalism ruins everything."
..."
... ) So, OK:
... pesticide-laden, hormone-laced food"? Ah, strictly a capitalist invention there, you betcha! If you want some good wholesome pollution, or were wondering what the practical upshot might be between mostly-capitalism and sort-of-socialism, visit the former East and West Germanies, or the countryside outside of Prague, or many many places in the former Soviet Union where toxic (including radioactive) waste was brazenly poured into lakes and rivers. TMI and the Love Canal have nothing on consequence-free socialist management policies.
Suuuuuure, it does. Right. "Tell me again how sheep's bladders may be used to prevent earthquakes
Responding to the entire post would overlap with the comments arelready posted (and as Mark Twain would say, would annoy the pig), but a few things stand out as too silly to let fly (and make me suspect that the whole things was flamebait anyhow
- "
- Time wasted in traffic jams? Surely you jest. Would you rather be waiting 10 years for a car, or queuing for *bread*? How about signing up 6 or 10 years in advance to get a telephone, and paying your brethren electrician a few bribes along the way? And besides, you don't have to take that job if you don't want it. Sorry. ("Aw daddy, I like all these diamonds, but they're so heavy! Why did you make me take so many?!") There's no pleasing some people, I guess.
Get this much straight: Capitalism is actually fairly agnostic about what you *do* within it; it defines certain things as moral (free exchange of goods, including services, including philosophy, including whiny, illogical peaons to governmental oversight and meddling in everything, etc.) and after that, you're on your own to find the path you think is best. Captitalism defines possibilities; socialism draws up job lists.
Cheers,
timothy
I didn't hear the show, and I don't (yet) have an audio player on my linux machine, but I'm glad that they picked Matt and Alan to speak.
;)
Yes, it's good that they picked Matt and Alan (who spoke off the top of their heads) rather than some well-spoken but less credible representatives.
Obviously, I'm not the only one who needed the help of "Running Linux" to install it
Thanks, Matt!
timothy
This is an interesting point.
People have often pointed to the post-WWII development of Japan (and just as spectacularly, West Germany's Wirtschaftswunder -- economic miracle -- of the 50's) as being in part the result of the *destruction* of their infrastructure, and resultant rebuilding. "From scratch" may be an exaggeration, but it approaches truth.
In a sense, because the Allies (esp. North America, where no combat took place, AFAIK) *won* the war, and had in the end less to rebuild, America et al remained more fragmented / 'inertial' in their various standards (goes this theory) as well as in other aspects.
I think this theory has a lot of truth, but at the same time, the conclusions to be drawn from it are not clear. A lot of people are in favor of government imposed standards, the more the merrier, and there certainly are tons of such standards to choose from;)
However: I think the government ought to be responsible for as little as possible, and in the case of all sorts of standards should follow this basic rule. I'm happy to let the French (or the international consortium whose name I forget) define the metric units, and let the US government define US measures in either explicit or implicit reference to these -- and that's already been done. Interesting book by John Lord called (I think) "Sizes - how big or small things really are." Beyond that, let the market decide.
What role officialdom should play in measures and standards is an interesting topic; it's one of the few places I see a positive (but minimal) role for government as an arbiter and archivist.
Asking / expecting government to come up with optimal engineering solutions though is a very bad idea, and the convenience of standardization is not worth accepting imposed standards over experimentation and freedom to innovate. (Sorry if tht makes me sound like a Microsoft employee -- I'm not! -- but I hope it also makes me sound like a Free software advocate, which I am.)
Just thoughts,
timothy