And Picard told us that the war with the Klingons was sparked by a botched first contact with them. But that contact didn't seem to be botched.
I think the point was that everyone wanted the klingon to die (including the klingon himself), because it would mean that the message would arrive safely to Chronos without intervention. By imposing human values onto the situation, the captain risked destroying their whole plan.
But in the end, it takes a piece of the market owned wholly by *nices and allows a commercial entity to have a share of it.
There are two distinctive and very different markets here: desktops and servers. And to be honest, BSD and Linux have never had a chance as an old fashioned desktop operating system; there's just not enough organization to get software manufacturers to build applications for them. But as servers, BSD/Linux don't have a real competitor.
I think that rather than providing a potential danger to Linux and BSD, OS X will provide the perfect compliment to them; it will actually strengthen their position as servers in the office space.
Before OS X, if you needed to use a desktop for say, something like editing resume.doc (because you can't be certain that those annomalies Star Office puts into documents won't be there again, and some ass-clown in HR wants everything to be.doc), you started up the old token Windows box, or booted up from your FAT partition. If you were at the office, chances are a Windows box is all you've got anyway.
With OS X, there's no need to have two boxes, or to have half of your disk taken up by FAT partitions. All the tools are there, and with the FreeBSD ports tree, most of the applications that you know from Linux are still there.
By running a VNC server on localhost, you can have an X session open and be working with The Gimp or gplot at the same time you're working with Illustrator, Maya, or Word.
The real benefit OS X gives is to those who know how to use UNIX. No more sad sessions in a MS-DOS command prompt window. Among the many benefits are all the tools, a full man page set (no more cls --help bull$h1t), SSH client and server already installed, and the ability to utilize the FreeBSD ports tree.
And for a systems administrator, having the ability to utilize those tools means all the difference.
Anyway, when was the last time you saw a G4 used as a web server?
I guess I must be a piece of the market that Apple has stolen away. I ran FreeBSD for nearly two years as the only operating system on my laptop.
Server
Desktop
Using OS X, I have all the command line server tools on my desktop. I don't have to confine myself to the twenty some sad "command prompt" commands available under Windows.
Where BSD and Linux shine is as se
Personally, I find it irrelevant whether Microsoft decides to put a, "You have to send us your first-born before using this poorly made software" clause in every one of their products. As long as I don't have to use Microsoft products, I will still keep on loving what I'm doing & I will still keep on doing it.
I think Microsoft was a good thing for all of us; it helped to put, "a computer on every desk top."
But the sooner Microsoft sinks into the mire of litigation it has stepped into, the sooner we can move on to the next stage of computer software. I say kudos to Microsoft, please put more idiotic right-restricting lawyer-paying clauses in your licenses. Let the lawyers have all those licensing fees!
Finally, I say kudos to those who brought this stupidity out in the open.
btw...
Is it just me, or do other people find that it's funny to read Sheldon's remarks? I find them funny because no one I know (other than a politician) can talk around, over, and behind an issue, never talking about the issue raised by an article. If it doesn't hold to Sheldon's viewpoint, he inevitably accredits the discussion or opposing viewpoint to "Linux zealots."
I guess the Microsoft apologists have been invading for a while now, but Sheldon is my favorite. Actually, I'm a pretty big fan of Sheldon's work; I search for his remarks whenever an Microsoft-is-not-king-shit story comes up. I know it will be worth the trip to see how he dodges the story line to bite at the ankles of another "Linux zealot."
Tragedy for a culture in control of its destiny
on
Review: A.I.
·
· Score: 1
Instead of the cathartic act of self-destruction, A.I. forces an encounter with something much more meaningful to these times.
Instead of telling a tragedy all over again, A.I. weaves in many other elements of our modern life (fairly-tales, apocalypse, and our own search for meaning in a world we have the power to give life or death to...), and in so doing, pulls off something which has much greater effect than would a simple tragedy.
Remember the old saying, "if you have to ask, then it probably isn't."
If Manet had asked his contemporaries what art is, and followed what they told him, he would never have been the nexus of the Impressionists. If Picasso or Warhol had asked their contemporaries what art is, they never would have pushed into the realms they did.
So, when you're getting ragged on by another post-modernist hack wannabe, (or even worse, some neo-realist, or neo-classical moron) think of the absolute uproar that Manet's Olympia caused at the Paris exhibition. Think of a true "artist" like Marcel Duchamp, who did everything he could to show how ludicrious the whole idea of an artist is.
Art is what you believe it to be.
If you want to be a craftsman, go buy a book and follow the instructions. If you want to be an artist, throw away the book, the critic, and the "artist" too.
It seems like any time I read some knuckle-head on Slashdot dropping names, or paraphrasing some other readily available article that they could actually QUOTE from, some moderator who's too lazy to check, or just doesn't understand what rhetoric is moderates it up.
If the writing effectively expresses a viewpoint, and backs it up with quotes, then fine, moderate that piece up--that's the only way the system will work. But this--this is specifically engineered to avoid addressing any of the issues brought forth by the article. This is a sham set up to draw attention away from what the WSJ article says.
I'm not saying that opinion doesn't matter--that's most of the point of being here--but when the author of the article proffers rhetoric, paraphrase and opinion as evidence, then their writing should be judged differently.
I'm not trying to get into a pissing match over some abstract idea you have over better or worse to administer.
Obviously you're not a sys admin. I've got an office full of Microsoft machines that I'd trade in a heartbeat for something that was truly easy to administer.
Point and click.
Bullshit.
The point is that Microsoft doesn't build quality products.
Once you have something to say other than your weird half-baked ideas of what it's like "out there," tell me about it.
And yes, I KNOW that OpenBSD is a viable alternative for corporate use. You just have to know where to use it.
I know it's not a matter of quality, and rather than respond in platitudes and generalizations--as you have--let me give you a few real-world examples of what I mean.
My mom doesn't know, and doesn't want to know anything more about her computer than how to check e-mail and browse the Internet. She's using OpenBSD and XWindows. Why? Because it works. I got tired of being the family help-desk, trying to figure out what the hell happened to her comptuer from 2000 miles away. I set up OpenBSD and know that it will work unless the hardware breaks; I don't need to worry about all the self-changing registry values, the constant hassle of trying to keep a Windows machine running. If something is wrong, I dial in and change whatever I need to.
For my dad and sister, it's Windows, not because it works (rather, it's quite the opposite), but because they don't have the time or desire to learn anything else. If the computer was bundled with something else, that's what they would be using.
At my company, they've eaten Microsoft--hook line and sinker. And every day, as I hear them bitching about licensing models, about how much 10 more seats of something-or-other costs, I try to show them Free alternatives to the software they want to license, but as soon as they hear UNIX, their eyes glaze over. They don't know what to do because they're afraid of a terminal screen.
Let me tell you, it's not because Microsoft has built a better product, or even that the management is satisfied with what they have--it's just that they are scared to try anything new.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like a botched first contact to me...
I think that rather than providing a potential danger to Linux and BSD, OS X will provide the perfect compliment to them; it will actually strengthen their position as servers in the office space.
Before OS X, if you needed to use a desktop for say, something like editing resume.doc (because you can't be certain that those annomalies Star Office puts into documents won't be there again, and some ass-clown in HR wants everything to be .doc), you started up the old token Windows box, or booted up from your FAT partition. If you were at the office, chances are a Windows box is all you've got anyway.
With OS X, there's no need to have two boxes, or to have half of your disk taken up by FAT partitions. All the tools are there, and with the FreeBSD ports tree, most of the applications that you know from Linux are still there.
By running a VNC server on localhost, you can have an X session open and be working with The Gimp or gplot at the same time you're working with Illustrator, Maya, or Word.
The real benefit OS X gives is to those who know how to use UNIX. No more sad sessions in a MS-DOS command prompt window. Among the many benefits are all the tools, a full man page set (no more cls --help bull$h1t), SSH client and server already installed, and the ability to utilize the FreeBSD ports tree.
And for a systems administrator, having the ability to utilize those tools means all the difference.
Anyway, when was the last time you saw a G4 used as a web server?
I guess I must be a piece of the market that Apple has stolen away. I ran FreeBSD for nearly two years as the only operating system on my laptop. Server Desktop Using OS X, I have all the command line server tools on my desktop. I don't have to confine myself to the twenty some sad "command prompt" commands available under Windows. Where BSD and Linux shine is as se
I think Microsoft was a good thing for all of us; it helped to put, "a computer on every desk top." But the sooner Microsoft sinks into the mire of litigation it has stepped into, the sooner we can move on to the next stage of computer software. I say kudos to Microsoft, please put more idiotic right-restricting lawyer-paying clauses in your licenses. Let the lawyers have all those licensing fees!
Finally, I say kudos to those who brought this stupidity out in the open.
btw... Is it just me, or do other people find that it's funny to read Sheldon's remarks? I find them funny because no one I know (other than a politician) can talk around, over, and behind an issue, never talking about the issue raised by an article. If it doesn't hold to Sheldon's viewpoint, he inevitably accredits the discussion or opposing viewpoint to "Linux zealots."
I guess the Microsoft apologists have been invading for a while now, but Sheldon is my favorite. Actually, I'm a pretty big fan of Sheldon's work; I search for his remarks whenever an Microsoft-is-not-king-shit story comes up. I know it will be worth the trip to see how he dodges the story line to bite at the ankles of another "Linux zealot."
Instead of telling a tragedy all over again, A.I. weaves in many other elements of our modern life (fairly-tales, apocalypse, and our own search for meaning in a world we have the power to give life or death to...), and in so doing, pulls off something which has much greater effect than would a simple tragedy.
Whatever you do, don't walk out on the last act.
If Manet had asked his contemporaries what art is, and followed what they told him, he would never have been the nexus of the Impressionists. If Picasso or Warhol had asked their contemporaries what art is, they never would have pushed into the realms they did.
So, when you're getting ragged on by another post-modernist hack wannabe, (or even worse, some neo-realist, or neo-classical moron) think of the absolute uproar that Manet's Olympia caused at the Paris exhibition. Think of a true "artist" like Marcel Duchamp, who did everything he could to show how ludicrious the whole idea of an artist is.
Art is what you believe it to be.
If you want to be a craftsman, go buy a book and follow the instructions. If you want to be an artist, throw away the book, the critic, and the "artist" too.
Do what feels right.
But IANF"A"
It seems like any time I read some knuckle-head on Slashdot dropping names, or paraphrasing some other readily available article that they could actually QUOTE from, some moderator who's too lazy to check, or just doesn't understand what rhetoric is moderates it up.
If the writing effectively expresses a viewpoint, and backs it up with quotes, then fine, moderate that piece up--that's the only way the system will work. But this--this is specifically engineered to avoid addressing any of the issues brought forth by the article. This is a sham set up to draw attention away from what the WSJ article says.
I'm not saying that opinion doesn't matter--that's most of the point of being here--but when the author of the article proffers rhetoric, paraphrase and opinion as evidence, then their writing should be judged differently.
I'm not trying to get into a pissing match over some abstract idea you have over better or worse to administer.
Obviously you're not a sys admin. I've got an office full of Microsoft machines that I'd trade in a heartbeat for something that was truly easy to administer.
Point and click.
Bullshit.
The point is that Microsoft doesn't build quality products.
Once you have something to say other than your weird half-baked ideas of what it's like "out there," tell me about it.
And yes, I KNOW that OpenBSD is a viable alternative for corporate use. You just have to know where to use it.
I know it's not a matter of quality, and rather than respond in platitudes and generalizations--as you have--let me give you a few real-world examples of what I mean.
My mom doesn't know, and doesn't want to know anything more about her computer than how to check e-mail and browse the Internet. She's using OpenBSD and XWindows. Why? Because it works. I got tired of being the family help-desk, trying to figure out what the hell happened to her comptuer from 2000 miles away. I set up OpenBSD and know that it will work unless the hardware breaks; I don't need to worry about all the self-changing registry values, the constant hassle of trying to keep a Windows machine running. If something is wrong, I dial in and change whatever I need to.
For my dad and sister, it's Windows, not because it works (rather, it's quite the opposite), but because they don't have the time or desire to learn anything else. If the computer was bundled with something else, that's what they would be using.
At my company, they've eaten Microsoft--hook line and sinker. And every day, as I hear them bitching about licensing models, about how much 10 more seats of something-or-other costs, I try to show them Free alternatives to the software they want to license, but as soon as they hear UNIX, their eyes glaze over. They don't know what to do because they're afraid of a terminal screen.
Let me tell you, it's not because Microsoft has built a better product, or even that the management is satisfied with what they have--it's just that they are scared to try anything new.