I'm not sure that "It's Funny, Laugh." would have been appropriate. I read it, and not once did I come anywhere close to laughing, or even grinning.
To each his/her own.
I got a few shallow chuckles out of it. But then, I'm easily amused. The telling point, though, is that I didn't bookmark it. It wasn't anything special, after all.
Does anyone else think something is wrong when a (supposedly) unbiased news site like CNN posts this story on its computing news front page? As much as I dislike Windows this is just biased as anything.
This is based on the grand assumption that any mainstream news site lacks bias. At best, a few specific authors might do a good job at being fair or insightfull in their work. But an unbiased source? I'm beginning to believe such a thing doesn't exist.
The only change is now we're seeing more mainstream bias against Microsoft. And we're seeing some positive bias towards Linux, with rare mention of other alternatives such as FreeBSD or BeOS.
Get a clue. Newbies who use the search box to surf the Web need to be educated, and the Lycos interstital page is as good a way as any. If someone is using a search engine to find another search engine, there is something wrong -- especially when they already know the Web address.
Newbies need a dose of education, agreed. Some need a double-dose. However, at the same time, newbies do wierd things. Otherwise intelligent, logical people will do some amazingly illogical things when put in front of a computer. Using a search engine to find another search engine who's URL is mostly made up of its own name could be one of them. This doesn't automatically provide a moral license to take advantage of that inexperience.
This is not a SCAM. Nothing is being sold or misrepresented. This is advertising. The Web is a business. Get over yourself.
OK. Wait. "This is advertising. The Web is a business" and at the same time "Nothing is being sold..." Lycos is indeed a business. Their adverisements claim that they will help you find what you're looking for. "Lycos... go get it!" That is, of course, assuming you're not looking for a competitor. Then their easy-to-use service becomes a muddle of advertising, plea for your patrionage, and a confusing choice of links. One could argue its simply bad design. Considering nothing else they do seems to have this problem - the better argument is that its an intentional ploy to capture the inexperienced newbie.
But why pick on Lycos? Surely "this is business". Others must be trying to fend of their competitors too, right?
Go to some of their competitors. Search for Lycos. Both Yahoo and Infoseek gladly give you a link to Lycos' front page... as well as breaking down to specific services Lycos offers. No pleas. No advertisements. No bait-and-switch confusion.
Lycos is a business - they claim to be an internet guide. Lycos is advertising something - themselves. And Lycos is misrepresenting their product - instead of providing links for the requested site, as their competitors do, they attempt to confuse and re-direct the user back to their own service.
Would it have been better if they had impartially listed every known Yahoo page, and relied on the user navigating to Yahoo home from there?
I've seen this kind of question pop up several times now. The crux of it is "How would YOU have Lycos handle this"?
Well. I'm not a search engine expert. So I went to some experts to find out. In the interest of brevity, I kept it to two of the affected Lycos competitors: Yahoo and Infoseek. Hit the links and see how THEY handle Lycos.
Amazing. Its what I would expect of a search engine/ web listing/ portal: easy to follow listings pertaining to the site I was interested in. No sales pitches. No confusing links. Just the info I need.
but the fact that it hasn't affected ANY OF YOU in the past year means that it is effectively targeted to newbies.
Whew. You're right. It only targets NEWBIES. Its not like they're people, after all. I feel much better.
Now that we've set that precident... I need to get out there and brush up all the old cons and scams.
"Yes, your Honor, I would like to point out to the court that the scam I was using was obvious and only GULLIBLE people fall for it." Judge glares at the DA Attorney. "Yes, yes... you're quite right, young man. I have NO idea why this case was even brought to me. Case dismissed!"
I don't know how RedHat compares to SCO (as I've never used the latter), but don't forget that RedHat only develops about 10% of the code that is in the package whereas SCO develops its own kernel and everything.
Based on your marketing insight, I think I'll package my own OS. SprocketOS. I develop the entire thing. From kernel to userspace apps. Its all my doing.
I add more value than RedHat.
The fact that I'm not very versed in coding anything, and that the entire "OS" is actually examples of "Hello World" renamed hundreds of times should be overlooked.
Now all I need is a few acidic remarks about a Linux vendor and I'll have a business model...
And the vast majority of those GIFs just get ignored. When's the last time you clicked a banner? There aren't any precise figures, but the consensus is that the average click-through rate is dropping. Three percent click-through used to be good. Now a well-targeted ad will be happy to get one or two percent. It's hard work to make money from banners, and getting harder every day.
Blame this on the firms themselves. They're the ones how have sold their advertising clients on the idea of the click-through. Apparently, if the user doesn't imediately click on the add banner, the add has failed.
Imagine applying that to the rest of the advertising world.
I'm reading a magazine. Upon seeing an add for a new car, if I'm not immediately calling the dealership to get more info... the add has failed.
I'm watching TV. McDonald's tempts me with various fast, hot offerings. If I'm not immediately driving to the local franchise the add has failed.
The radio's music selection is interupted. Coca-cola plays the "pop-hsssssst" noise of a fresh can being opened. I should be at my fridge and rooting out a Coke like some kind of experiment by Pavlov. Otherwise, the add has failed.
Please.
Advertisements don't generate immediate sales. They get the product out there in the minds of an audience. They let people know they're there. They might even, gawd forbid, SAY something about the product. But the main intent is mindshare. The consumer should think "I'm hungry" followed by "McDonalds". Coca-cola (followed by Pepsi) own the soft drink market. They're entrenched. Why bother spending huge amounts on advertising then? Mind share.
Click-through rates are an antiquated part of the web. Sure, bleeding edge companies like DoubleClick needed something to convince advertisers to divert funds from tried-and-true traditional media. But now its extra baggage.
Electronic media is becoming a part of the mainstream. Sure, traditional media will insist on the greater validity of "traditional journalism". While the point is weak at best, they are partly correct; traditional media will still be around. But it is slowly being time shared with its new online cousins. That means lost advertising time in the traditional space. That's less time to generate mind share for your product. If an advertiser wants to make that up, they need to also run online banners.
Advertisers WILL advertise online - with or without click-through rates.
Slashdot is one example, in that if you want to be heard, you have to login and accept the cookie.
I was under the impression that the/. cookie is used to log in. Don't accept the cookie. Log in manually each time. Or am I blissfully unaware of something?
Or Christian romance novels (yes, they're out there)?
I always though romance novels were an accepted form of erotica marketed towards women. Kind of like a female Playboy, but with less direct overtones than Playgirl. Christian romance novels. Christian Playboy. (shudder).
I fail to see the issue here. Computer games have long had elements from various religions and ethos in the past. Granted, most of those religions are either dead or followed by very fringe elements. But that doesn't mean we can't, and shouldn't, see games based on today's religious texts and concepts. Heck - some of the most interesting movies I can think of are based on Christian scripture. Granted, there's plenty of horrid movies too. The key to the game in question is how well it is done - not from what dogma its concepts came from.
Having said that, somebody is going to be upset. Either the game will be considered sacreligious (and I don't doubt this one will) or it will be an electronic sermon. It all depends on what extreeme pro or con point of view you have on the religion in question. Both will have their markets. Me... I'll be interested if its more Seventh Sign or Prince of Darkness than Jesus Christ Superstar.
OK.. yea... that was a joke. Having said that, I find myself writing the occasional graffiti stroke when jotting something down quickly on a PostIt.
If anything, it probably reenforces the idea that I don't NEED sticky notes. I'm better off using my Palm. But then... there's those cool all-black PostIts with the white (or metalic, or dayglo, etc) gel pens. Those are cool....
I've had games crash Linux too so I'm not really sure what your point is. If you're running Unreal on your server then clearly you don't care very much about performence.
Not to sound like a zealot or anything... but name the game that "crashed Linux" (as a bonus, what exactly do you mean by "crashed Linux").
Netscape is pretty horrible. It crashes on a regular basis. Of course, when it goes down, only Netscape goes down.
I've had Gnome do wierd things and even had it take out my X Windows sever. That mean all X apps go bye-bye. Of course, the OS was still intact... respawned the server and invited me to log back in.
By far the worse I've had is trying to launch Quake once and it seemed to crash, leaving me with a mangled terminal. The OS was still intact. I could log into it remotely. Of course... I couldn't get to another virtual terminal or back to my X Windows session. I'm sure there was a way to fix this (someone please clue me in if you know). I had to reboot to clear it. Of course... having said that... the OS was actually still running along (a moot point since I couldn't do much with it - probably due to my ignorance).
So there's my worse experiences. What's yours?
As a side note - I use linux as a desktop OS for home and work. Very nicely. The odd thing is, I have also been known to use NT as a desktop OS too. "Linux" and "WinNT" don't always mean "server". 'Course... "Win9x" does usually mean "game machine".;)
I believe the situation you're describing is the current status quo. This kind of outlook has gotten us, as an industry, in the position we are now.
But strange things are afoot.
I work in an extreemly beurocratic pro-Microsoft environment. When it comes to IT, decisions are made here that can match any PHB anywhere else. But there are strange undercurrents.
The other day I was happily doing my own thing. From the office behind me comes "Damn this Windows - damn Microsoft". Another admin. doing some trendy Microsoft-bashing? Nope. This was uttered from a decisively non-tech-oriented budget analyst. A year ago, it probably would have been "damn computers". Now Microsoft is getting the blame for her system crashing. The claim is made that the "masses" accept buggy software and computers crashing... that they don't understand the problem. I think this is an example of a change in understanding. The backlash towards Microsoft is coming.
Our organization has had an interesting history. One IT director kicked a hornets nest when he tried to route out Apple from the environment. The Mac fans faught back. It was messy. In the end, the Apple contingent took some hits... but apples are still on site. With this kind of history, what hope does Linux have? One organizations has built their own "standard load" consisting of a dual-boot site-standard Windows and Linux (not sure which distro). Meanwhile, the contractor for the majority of our IT resources has gotten requests to design a linux-based "standard load".
This doesn't mean that life here has dramatically changed for the IT worker. Its still tightly controlled by PHBs with Microsoft sales brochures firmly grasped in their fists. But even here... small cracks are evident. One can't help but muse whether these are signs that the damn is about to burst. Maybe the industry is ready to change how it does business.
Actually, they're running Zeus, which can handle all the load you want to throw at it (last time I looked, it was far and away the highest performing web server on the planet on any system).
That's nice. Hit the link. Watch it crawl.
I'm sure Zeus does rather well. However, what we have here is further proof that a single component does not a system make. Slashdot is on them - even the power of Zeus can not save them.
As a side note, it makes an interesting practical demonstration of why past benchmarks are silly. Even if we were to accept Mindcraft's (group groan) findings at face value... just because a server can push out an amazing amount of data, it doesn't mean much unless you have an amazingly insane amount of bandwidth to deal with it.
Okay, to summarize: OS, irrelevant; programs, reason for having a computer; anything that blurs the distinction between one OS and the next (or makes the OS distinction a distant second to program usability), good news indeed.
Allow me to offer a different angle on the subject. The ultimate goal of Linux is to be irrelevant.
Now, this is possibly a misleading statement. The Linux as an OS is not irrelevant to enthusiasts and developers working on Linux. Certainly, there is always development to be done - new hardware to support, new concepts in computing to implement. In this light, Linux is the focus.
However, to those who are "computers as a tool" folks and are more interested in the applications they need to run, the Linux OS isn't specifically important. They want the OS to be pretty much secondary to their being able to use specific tools.
Linux provides this kind of environment.
Linux is able to be "irrelevant" in two ways - via its development model and its ability to be customized.
Lets look at the Linux development model first. Features make it into Linux distributions based on the merits of that feature. Features that meet a great demand, and have technical merit, often get the most support. Features that don't meet either requirement tend to be abandoned. The Linux environment is developed based on workable technologies and applications; there is rarely any other consideration.
In contrast, commercial developers are often pressured to maintain an OS' market. Often this takes the form of marketing agreements and requirements to support specific technologies. This leads to technical decisions becoming dependent on marketing requirements. Eventually, the applications you need are developed based on the requirements of an OS. The OS becomes the focus.
The next issue is that of customization. Different people work in different ways. Being able to make an environment behave in a way that makes you productive is important. Customization allows you to generate that environment even if your requirements are different than your coworkers.
One of the most visible aspects of one's computing environment is the graphical user interface. Within Windows, you are expected to use the default GUI. Applications are designed with these conventions in mind. They also occasionally make use of hidden hooks within the default GUI. Meanwhile, Linux uses the X Windowing System. X allows users to use whatever window manager they wish, thus having the ability to completely customize the "look and feel" of their environment. Furthermore, applications are designed to work independently of the GUI environment.
There are exceptions to the points in the above paragraph. For example, there are 3rd party alternatives to Window's explorer shell. However, those alternatives aren't 100% compatible. And in the Linux environment, some applications are dependent on desktop environments such as KDE or Gnome (which in turn are compatible with numerous window managers). However, that being said, I think you will find the philosophy of Linux lending to customization much easier than Windows (or many other commercial, proprietary environments).
In the end, you have to use what works the best for the task at hand. Linux is not always the answer. That's why dual-boot environments are fairly common.
However, if you are interested in an environment that is designed with the user in mind and is able to be configured according to your requirements, you owe it to yourself to look into Linux or another Open Source OS (such as the *BSD flavors). Support projects that provide the functionality you need to these OS'. Demand that functionality from your vendors.
Sure. The OS should be irrelevant to functionality. But that doesn't mean the OS is not important.
If I remember correctly, this book coined the term "avatar" as used in a virtual world. Yet another example of why we should all bow down and worship Neal Stephanson...;)
Actually, there was a VR-type system that was already being developed that used the "avatar" label. Neil Stephanson wasn't aware of it at the time. He does, however, make note of it during a kind of after-reflections blurb at the end of the copy I have. I'll have to dig up the book and post the relevent passage.
Having said that... the avatar moniker is just another example of how Stephanson put some fore-thought into this novel. Cable as a data medium has been noted. He also makes mention of using wireless networking and the speed hit one takes to do it. Another minor point was that Hiro really couldn't afford his Metaverse environment, but he paid for it anyway. A further point was the relative minor number of people in the world that had access to the Metaverse. All are reflections of today's emerging environment.
Snow Crash is an odd world. There are some purely wierd things in it. But interlaced with the oddness is some very close-to-home observations/predictions.
Is a truthful answer to someone's question flame bait?
I have to agree. While I may not agree with the content of the AC's post, this doesn't make the thread flamebait. If anything, I think the thread has been informative.
As a side note - the only actual flames I've seen are left intact. THOSE need to be moderated, IMHO.
Moderators need to calibrate their sensors; apparently the "I don't agree with this" reading is picking up as "flamebait".
This brings up a question I've been pondering over since reading the PC Week "lessons learned" - how dangerous are patches?
I've got some friends who work in some large scale NT shops. When it comes to Service Packs and Hotfixes, they're... cautious. The reason for that caution is that while Service Packs and Hotfixes do fix things - they're also known to occasionally break things in nasty, unexpected ways.
Meanwhile, I've left the NT environment and managed to emerse myself within several flavors of Unix. I install patches left and right. I've yet to run into trouble doing so (though I've never touched a patch labled as beta). However, I can't help but wonder if I'm not just a babe in the woods yet to encounter their first wolf?
Has anyone ran into trouble using patches for anything in any unix (or "unix-like" if you want to be picky) environment? And if so, what was required to return to safer ground?
It's the hurry-up syndrome; Ventures are in such a hurry to get on the web that they offer free services to boost membership, methods of verification simply don't exist; They'd rather grow, at the cost of other users of the net.
Some time ago, I found out my ISP was offering internet access "calling cards". For X dollers (5, 20, 100) you get X minutes of PPP via a 1-800 number. Apparently designed for traveling users.
What I saw it as was a "license to spam". For $5 you get unfiltered access to the ISP's mail gateway. You slam your message traffic through, then punch out. What? Your account gets shut down? No problem. Run the the Quickimart, slap down a $5 bill, and you've got another license.
Of course, I don't think this ever became an issue. At least, my friends at the ISP never mentioned it. Either spammers don't know about it... or there's much cheaper ways to pull off the same thing. Right now, I'd put my money on "cheaper ways".
Re:The Killer App is dormant, not gone...
on
$200 Linux PCs
·
· Score: 2
A very salient observation you've made there; except that the Killer Apps are still around, but instead of hitting a PC bottleneck, they are restricted by network bandwidth.
Just think of video conferencing, VR environments and other such bandwidth-sucking beasties...
Indeed. The Industry Bigwigs know that killer app is just sitting there. Waiting. Just out of reach.
Sure... Intel tries to dance funky animations in front of us, wave a "door" around on the screen, and claim that CPU horsepower (specifically, THEIR brand of horsepower) will make your Internet experience better. We all know that's hooey. What we need is bandwidth. Intel knows that too.
Witness the investments in both cable and ADSL that Bigwigs like Intel and Microsoft have made. They really don't care what high bandwidth hardware religion comes out on top. What they DO know is that once the bandwidth is there, the next wave of resource intensive apps will become commonplace. They need those apps to sell product.
I agree. The next Killer App is dormant. Its only waiting for the telecommunications infrastructure to get around to laying a path to your home. Its a slow process.... but its just a matter of time.
Yes, it's difficult to get a precise definition of productivity. But a 50% discrepancy shows something is astray that's hard to mask no matter how you cut the cheese. Maybe the "true" figure is only 25%, a factor of 2 less than in the CNN story. It's still a poor showing. I'm not surprised that the US-dominated readership of/. came to a consensus that dismissed the report. It would have remarkable if they hadn't - can you really say that workers in the US IT industry are going to be the most objective commentators on that CNN story?
Once again, I invite you to actually read the/. responces to that article. In summery, the point of contention seems to be the article claiming "lines of code" as a meter of productivity. First, the question asked is "what is considered a 'line of code'?" Then the discussion continues to questioning whether counting lines of code is a true indication. The examples brought up usually involve plugging in toolkits or sloppy code vs. optimized code (leading to less lines of code). Both get a progect working. But, according to this article, the optimized code is less productive.
Would I trust the US IT industry dominated readership of/. to objectively comment on that piece? Sure. The arguments are valid. Non-US readers are more than welcome to poke holes in them. A peer discussion allows this. As an added bonus, there are some individuals who have no problem taking hits when critism is warrented. Granted, not all do. Thankfully, posts that read "Americans Work Harder" seems to be a minority.
I think you have it backward when you say "Europeans are discovering that longer hours does not mean more production". I think Europeans have been aware of that for a long time.
Yes, I think you're right there. I was completely wrong in that statement. European government seems to be a lot more concerned with worker's quality of life issues. Good for them. I'm reminded of the old saying "work smarter, not harder." With statments like "Americans work harder" coupled with stories of "no personal life" lifestyles demanded by some IT shops... I wonder who really is working smarter these days.
Problem: paper copy is only a workaround until the folks that be decide that a book IS a machine-readable form (courtesy of OCR), at which point we're really screwed, yeah?
As the article mentioned, officials are hesitant to go after printed material. Printed documents are a sacred cow (ie: Freedom of the Press). It would be easy to prove any such restrictions unconstitutional.
Basically, its an issue of understanding technology. Most people, to include some very bright minds, just can't seem to get a good understanding of what the various forms of technology are. Thus, its hard to see electronic documents containing source code as free speach. Meanwhile, any fool can understand the printed word must be protected.
Take email vs. snail mail as an example. Traditional paper note-in-an-envelope mail has a fair amount of legal protection. It didn't have to have it - but early American planners made sure of it. Meanwhile, recent rulings have given email none of the protections that traditional mail has. I think those who work within a technology environment see little difference between the legal privacy of a piece of paper vs. electronic file. Its obviously not so apparent to outsiders.
So going back to source code... those who are a part of the techology see restriction of source code as a freedom of speach/press issue. However, outsiders may not understand this. It may take some considerable work to connect the two. In a court of law, this doesn't always happen. Thus, officials who want to go after published source code will have an easier time at restricting electronic distribution than dead-tree distributions.
Personally I'd rather log into an Apache webserver with no graphics, and all high quality *text-only* content than some huge, bandwidth sucking, graphichal "Art" site where it takes 10x as long to find what you're looking for.
I agree to a point. I go to a site for its content. If the graphics aren't a part of that content, they have the potential of getting in the way. To be more specific, the design of the site is dependant on its purpose.
If its intent is pure information - minimal graphics are required. For example, I find a Open Source progect I'm curious about. I hit their progect's site. Many of these sites are very bare and offer more information than splash (to include an optional link to screenshots). Perfect. I'm there to find out about the progect, not see how many outputs of Photoshop plugins and script-fu can be strung togeather.
However, some site's entire purpose is graphics. When I head over to themes.org, I expect some snazz. And I get it. Its heavy on the graphics and layout. But, IMHO, its clean and slick. I'll take the performance hit for the flash. I'm there for eye candy to begin with.
Having said that, "art" has its limits. A bad layout destroys any reason to hit a site. This is only compounded if the images are huge and unweildy. This is where we get into the "100 font document" syndrome experienced in desktop publishing (as mentioned elsewhere in this thread).
The real "art" to web page design is the combination of technology and graphics to make a pleasant, easy to use interface to whatever information is being offered. The designer has to consider bandwidth restrictions, target audience's computer resource limitations, differences in browsers, etc, etc.
Almost anyone can slap something on a server that'll produce output. Not everyone can do it well.
Slashdot Mirror
I got a few shallow chuckles out of it. But then, I'm easily amused. The telling point, though, is that I didn't bookmark it. It wasn't anything special, after all.
The only change is now we're seeing more mainstream bias against Microsoft. And we're seeing some positive bias towards Linux, with rare mention of other alternatives such as FreeBSD or BeOS.
But why pick on Lycos? Surely "this is business". Others must be trying to fend of their competitors too, right?
Go to some of their competitors. Search for Lycos. Both Yahoo and Infoseek gladly give you a link to Lycos' front page... as well as breaking down to specific services Lycos offers. No pleas. No advertisements. No bait-and-switch confusion.
Lycos is a business - they claim to be an internet guide. Lycos is advertising something - themselves. And Lycos is misrepresenting their product - instead of providing links for the requested site, as their competitors do, they attempt to confuse and re-direct the user back to their own service.
Well. I'm not a search engine expert. So I went to some experts to find out. In the interest of brevity, I kept it to two of the affected Lycos competitors: Yahoo and Infoseek. Hit the links and see how THEY handle Lycos.
Amazing. Its what I would expect of a search engine/ web listing/ portal: easy to follow listings pertaining to the site I was interested in. No sales pitches. No confusing links. Just the info I need.
How refreshing.
Now that we've set that precident... I need to get out there and brush up all the old cons and scams.
"Yes, your Honor, I would like to point out to the court that the scam I was using was obvious and only GULLIBLE people fall for it."
Judge glares at the DA Attorney. "Yes, yes... you're quite right, young man. I have NO idea why this case was even brought to me. Case dismissed!"
I add more value than RedHat.
The fact that I'm not very versed in coding anything, and that the entire "OS" is actually examples of "Hello World" renamed hundreds of times should be overlooked.
Now all I need is a few acidic remarks about a Linux vendor and I'll have a business model...
Saaay. Spammers are kind enough to offer the same services. Maybe I should send THEM opt-out messages too?
For some reason, I fail to trust either.
Imagine applying that to the rest of the advertising world.
I'm reading a magazine. Upon seeing an add for a new car, if I'm not immediately calling the dealership to get more info... the add has failed.
I'm watching TV. McDonald's tempts me with various fast, hot offerings. If I'm not immediately driving to the local franchise the add has failed.
The radio's music selection is interupted. Coca-cola plays the "pop-hsssssst" noise of a fresh can being opened. I should be at my fridge and rooting out a Coke like some kind of experiment by Pavlov. Otherwise, the add has failed.
Please.
Advertisements don't generate immediate sales. They get the product out there in the minds of an audience. They let people know they're there. They might even, gawd forbid, SAY something about the product. But the main intent is mindshare. The consumer should think "I'm hungry" followed by "McDonalds". Coca-cola (followed by Pepsi) own the soft drink market. They're entrenched. Why bother spending huge amounts on advertising then? Mind share.
Click-through rates are an antiquated part of the web. Sure, bleeding edge companies like DoubleClick needed something to convince advertisers to divert funds from tried-and-true traditional media. But now its extra baggage.
Electronic media is becoming a part of the mainstream. Sure, traditional media will insist on the greater validity of "traditional journalism". While the point is weak at best, they are partly correct; traditional media will still be around. But it is slowly being time shared with its new online cousins. That means lost advertising time in the traditional space. That's less time to generate mind share for your product. If an advertiser wants to make that up, they need to also run online banners.
Advertisers WILL advertise online - with or without click-through rates.
Having said that, somebody is going to be upset. Either the game will be considered sacreligious (and I don't doubt this one will) or it will be an electronic sermon. It all depends on what extreeme pro or con point of view you have on the religion in question. Both will have their markets. Me... I'll be interested if its more Seventh Sign or Prince of Darkness than Jesus Christ Superstar.
If anything, it probably reenforces the idea that I don't NEED sticky notes. I'm better off using my Palm. But then... there's those cool all-black PostIts with the white (or metalic, or dayglo, etc) gel pens. Those are cool....
Netscape is pretty horrible. It crashes on a regular basis. Of course, when it goes down, only Netscape goes down.
I've had Gnome do wierd things and even had it take out my X Windows sever. That mean all X apps go bye-bye. Of course, the OS was still intact... respawned the server and invited me to log back in.
By far the worse I've had is trying to launch Quake once and it seemed to crash, leaving me with a mangled terminal. The OS was still intact. I could log into it remotely. Of course... I couldn't get to another virtual terminal or back to my X Windows session. I'm sure there was a way to fix this (someone please clue me in if you know). I had to reboot to clear it. Of course... having said that... the OS was actually still running along (a moot point since I couldn't do much with it - probably due to my ignorance).
So there's my worse experiences. What's yours?
As a side note - I use linux as a desktop OS for home and work. Very nicely. The odd thing is, I have also been known to use NT as a desktop OS too. "Linux" and "WinNT" don't always mean "server". 'Course... "Win9x" does usually mean "game machine". ;)
But strange things are afoot.
I work in an extreemly beurocratic pro-Microsoft environment. When it comes to IT, decisions are made here that can match any PHB anywhere else. But there are strange undercurrents.
The other day I was happily doing my own thing. From the office behind me comes "Damn this Windows - damn Microsoft". Another admin. doing some trendy Microsoft-bashing? Nope. This was uttered from a decisively non-tech-oriented budget analyst. A year ago, it probably would have been "damn computers". Now Microsoft is getting the blame for her system crashing. The claim is made that the "masses" accept buggy software and computers crashing... that they don't understand the problem. I think this is an example of a change in understanding. The backlash towards Microsoft is coming.
Our organization has had an interesting history. One IT director kicked a hornets nest when he tried to route out Apple from the environment. The Mac fans faught back. It was messy. In the end, the Apple contingent took some hits... but apples are still on site. With this kind of history, what hope does Linux have? One organizations has built their own "standard load" consisting of a dual-boot site-standard Windows and Linux (not sure which distro). Meanwhile, the contractor for the majority of our IT resources has gotten requests to design a linux-based "standard load".
This doesn't mean that life here has dramatically changed for the IT worker. Its still tightly controlled by PHBs with Microsoft sales brochures firmly grasped in their fists. But even here... small cracks are evident. One can't help but muse whether these are signs that the damn is about to burst. Maybe the industry is ready to change how it does business.
I'm sure Zeus does rather well. However, what we have here is further proof that a single component does not a system make. Slashdot is on them - even the power of Zeus can not save them.
As a side note, it makes an interesting practical demonstration of why past benchmarks are silly. Even if we were to accept Mindcraft's (group groan) findings at face value... just because a server can push out an amazing amount of data, it doesn't mean much unless you have an amazingly insane amount of bandwidth to deal with it.
Now, this is possibly a misleading statement. The Linux as an OS is not irrelevant to enthusiasts and developers working on Linux. Certainly, there is always development to be done - new hardware to support, new concepts in computing to implement. In this light, Linux is the focus.
However, to those who are "computers as a tool" folks and are more interested in the applications they need to run, the Linux OS isn't specifically important. They want the OS to be pretty much secondary to their being able to use specific tools.
Linux provides this kind of environment.
Linux is able to be "irrelevant" in two ways - via its development model and its ability to be customized.
Lets look at the Linux development model first. Features make it into Linux distributions based on the merits of that feature. Features that meet a great demand, and have technical merit, often get the most support. Features that don't meet either requirement tend to be abandoned. The Linux environment is developed based on workable technologies and applications; there is rarely any other consideration.
In contrast, commercial developers are often pressured to maintain an OS' market. Often this takes the form of marketing agreements and requirements to support specific technologies. This leads to technical decisions becoming dependent on marketing requirements. Eventually, the applications you need are developed based on the requirements of an OS. The OS becomes the focus.
The next issue is that of customization. Different people work in different ways. Being able to make an environment behave in a way that makes you productive is important. Customization allows you to generate that environment even if your requirements are different than your coworkers.
One of the most visible aspects of one's computing environment is the graphical user interface. Within Windows, you are expected to use the default GUI. Applications are designed with these conventions in mind. They also occasionally make use of hidden hooks within the default GUI. Meanwhile, Linux uses the X Windowing System. X allows users to use whatever window manager they wish, thus having the ability to completely customize the "look and feel" of their environment. Furthermore, applications are designed to work independently of the GUI environment.
There are exceptions to the points in the above paragraph. For example, there are 3rd party alternatives to Window's explorer shell. However, those alternatives aren't 100% compatible. And in the Linux environment, some applications are dependent on desktop environments such as KDE or Gnome (which in turn are compatible with numerous window managers). However, that being said, I think you will find the philosophy of Linux lending to customization much easier than Windows (or many other commercial, proprietary environments).
In the end, you have to use what works the best for the task at hand. Linux is not always the answer. That's why dual-boot environments are fairly common.
However, if you are interested in an environment that is designed with the user in mind and is able to be configured according to your requirements, you owe it to yourself to look into Linux or another Open Source OS (such as the *BSD flavors). Support projects that provide the functionality you need to these OS'. Demand that functionality from your vendors.
Sure. The OS should be irrelevant to functionality. But that doesn't mean the OS is not important.
Actually, there was a VR-type system that was already being developed that used the "avatar" label. Neil Stephanson wasn't aware of it at the time. He does, however, make note of it during a kind of after-reflections blurb at the end of the copy I have. I'll have to dig up the book and post the relevent passage.
Having said that... the avatar moniker is just another example of how Stephanson put some fore-thought into this novel. Cable as a data medium has been noted. He also makes mention of using wireless networking and the speed hit one takes to do it. Another minor point was that Hiro really couldn't afford his Metaverse environment, but he paid for it anyway. A further point was the relative minor number of people in the world that had access to the Metaverse. All are reflections of today's emerging environment.
Snow Crash is an odd world. There are some purely wierd things in it. But interlaced with the oddness is some very close-to-home observations/predictions.
As a side note - the only actual flames I've seen are left intact. THOSE need to be moderated, IMHO.
Moderators need to calibrate their sensors; apparently the "I don't agree with this" reading is picking up as "flamebait".
I've got some friends who work in some large scale NT shops. When it comes to Service Packs and Hotfixes, they're... cautious. The reason for that caution is that while Service Packs and Hotfixes do fix things - they're also known to occasionally break things in nasty, unexpected ways.
Meanwhile, I've left the NT environment and managed to emerse myself within several flavors of Unix. I install patches left and right. I've yet to run into trouble doing so (though I've never touched a patch labled as beta). However, I can't help but wonder if I'm not just a babe in the woods yet to encounter their first wolf?
Has anyone ran into trouble using patches for anything in any unix (or "unix-like" if you want to be picky) environment? And if so, what was required to return to safer ground?
What I saw it as was a "license to spam". For $5 you get unfiltered access to the ISP's mail gateway. You slam your message traffic through, then punch out. What? Your account gets shut down? No problem. Run the the Quickimart, slap down a $5 bill, and you've got another license.
Of course, I don't think this ever became an issue. At least, my friends at the ISP never mentioned it. Either spammers don't know about it... or there's much cheaper ways to pull off the same thing. Right now, I'd put my money on "cheaper ways".
Sure... Intel tries to dance funky animations in front of us, wave a "door" around on the screen, and claim that CPU horsepower (specifically, THEIR brand of horsepower) will make your Internet experience better. We all know that's hooey. What we need is bandwidth. Intel knows that too.
Witness the investments in both cable and ADSL that Bigwigs like Intel and Microsoft have made. They really don't care what high bandwidth hardware religion comes out on top. What they DO know is that once the bandwidth is there, the next wave of resource intensive apps will become commonplace. They need those apps to sell product.
I agree. The next Killer App is dormant. Its only waiting for the telecommunications infrastructure to get around to laying a path to your home. Its a slow process.... but its just a matter of time.
Would I trust the US IT industry dominated readership of /. to objectively comment on that piece? Sure. The arguments are valid. Non-US readers are more than welcome to poke holes in them. A peer discussion allows this. As an added bonus, there are some individuals who have no problem taking hits when critism is warrented. Granted, not all do. Thankfully, posts that read "Americans Work Harder" seems to be a minority.
Yes, I think you're right there. I was completely wrong in that statement. European government seems to be a lot more concerned with worker's quality of life issues. Good for them. I'm reminded of the old saying "work smarter, not harder." With statments like "Americans work harder" coupled with stories of "no personal life" lifestyles demanded by some IT shops... I wonder who really is working smarter these days.Basically, its an issue of understanding technology. Most people, to include some very bright minds, just can't seem to get a good understanding of what the various forms of technology are. Thus, its hard to see electronic documents containing source code as free speach. Meanwhile, any fool can understand the printed word must be protected.
Take email vs. snail mail as an example. Traditional paper note-in-an-envelope mail has a fair amount of legal protection. It didn't have to have it - but early American planners made sure of it. Meanwhile, recent rulings have given email none of the protections that traditional mail has. I think those who work within a technology environment see little difference between the legal privacy of a piece of paper vs. electronic file. Its obviously not so apparent to outsiders.
So going back to source code... those who are a part of the techology see restriction of source code as a freedom of speach/press issue. However, outsiders may not understand this. It may take some considerable work to connect the two. In a court of law, this doesn't always happen. Thus, officials who want to go after published source code will have an easier time at restricting electronic distribution than dead-tree distributions.
If its intent is pure information - minimal graphics are required. For example, I find a Open Source progect I'm curious about. I hit their progect's site. Many of these sites are very bare and offer more information than splash (to include an optional link to screenshots). Perfect. I'm there to find out about the progect, not see how many outputs of Photoshop plugins and script-fu can be strung togeather.
However, some site's entire purpose is graphics. When I head over to themes.org, I expect some snazz. And I get it. Its heavy on the graphics and layout. But, IMHO, its clean and slick. I'll take the performance hit for the flash. I'm there for eye candy to begin with.
Having said that, "art" has its limits. A bad layout destroys any reason to hit a site. This is only compounded if the images are huge and unweildy. This is where we get into the "100 font document" syndrome experienced in desktop publishing (as mentioned elsewhere in this thread).
The real "art" to web page design is the combination of technology and graphics to make a pleasant, easy to use interface to whatever information is being offered. The designer has to consider bandwidth restrictions, target audience's computer resource limitations, differences in browsers, etc, etc.
Almost anyone can slap something on a server that'll produce output. Not everyone can do it well.