>Once they have linux installed by their grandson, it will run itself.
Until you want to use the latest USB gizmo. Or want to install pre-school software for the kids. And if you are always calling your grandson to do something what is this different from using Windows/Apple/(any other computer system)?
I agree with you on this point. A doctor or engineer or other person with a certain level of technical knowledge could even raise up more points on how currently easy it is to cause "terrorist acts".
But, there is a certain level of responsiblity public officials have. If they didn't do anything, because its too little or too much, they are still responsible. Is the lack of inaction a greater evil than doing something, even if some think its incorrect? Can you justify producing nothing to the public?
I'm just trying to show that there is a reason why they need to do something, not the points of the specific Act.
You've been saying that for the last 10 years. Since then we've grown bigger, have more cash than the total worth of third world companies and are still own a huge percent of many software categories that others would die to have.
>The mom and pop's can't compete due to VOLUME. Walmart can buy at higher volumes. They can also hire more people (at low wages... who in turn can't afford to shop anywhere but Walmart). They also have more corporate backing to push them into places where they aren't wanted. To say that the consumers decide is a bit of a joke.
Walmart/Starbucks buy at higher volumes of things. Walmart/Starbucks has more employees. Walmart/Starbucks have "corporate backing" (whatever this means, "mom and pops" stores are corporations)
Then because of these things, the consumer is "forced" to go into Walmart/Starbucks against their will. They, because of the way Walmart/Starbucks is set up, lose their ability to decide if they want to purchase there or not.
Could you please explain this logic? I can't see how any of the 3 points lead to your conclusion.
>What really irks me about Starbucks though is how irritated they seem when I order a small
How do they display this "irritation"?
You know that the guy serving you doesn't give a care what you buy since he gets paid by the hour regardless of what you order? In fact, he might be happy that you have such a simple order since it doesn't involve alot of work or thinking.
> take their ass to court and ask for the evidence that you were not performing your job correctly.
The courts wouldn't care, a company can fire you for any reason at all (exceptions: you are not an at-will employee and the action does not go against laws/the Constitution), including what you do with in your private life.
>unfortunately, the _mechanism_ for this removal relies on the individual software vendors
So, its not "well configured" by the individual software vendors. Hey, they need to make it more "well configured" and all the problems you pointed out will go away!
Do you see my point of things relying on how "well configured" something is?
>My television set isn't the TV signal, no matter how closely the two are related in my head.
Lets say that the my TV shows no picture. I don't know if the TV signal is messed up or my TV (or that do-hicky transistor in my tv or just the antenna or one of a thousand parts in the TV itself) or the electrical power or magical cosmic rays. The TV is out. Now there is a technical difference as in what exactly is not working as expected, the end result is that its not working.
Now if a shell = things that you click, GUI = X/things I display, windows manager = controlling borders/windows (but may or may not include how it looks or how parts act on that window), why would I care? I have a "Windowing System" that shows things/moves things around/accepts clicks and does things, isn't that one system, one "thing"?
You are saying that there is a fixed definition for parts. If it controls windows, its a Windows Manager and ONLY a Windows Manager can control windows.
To other people, all these parts are one and the same. Ask a non-technical person. Ask a non-programming/system architect X Unix person.
I still don't even see what is the practical difference between them all. You gave a nice example, but how does this apply to the real world in which someone would actually go through the trouble to do your example?
>None of these things controls or positions windows. >(While you do technically "manage" windows via the task bar, that is not what is meant by "Window Manager")
I don't get this. Task Bar does controls windows (close, opens, minimize, "titlebar it") but its not part of the "windows manager". Fine, so why bring it up? If it "technically" does it, why can't we count it "actually" doing it?
>It provides borders and control widgets for Windows.
>It may provide hotkeys and a few things like that.
Geoshell does this.
From http://docs.geoshell.com/R4?pagename=ReplacementSh ellForWindows "Allows you to launch programs from buttons, from menus, from hotkeys--in any combination! (How about a hotkey that pops-up a menu of your most used applications?)"
>Even this does not replace the Windows Window Manager, it merely provides more than rudimentary theming for it.
No, it includes stuff that does more than just rudimenntary theming, as I've pointed out above.
>GUI - this is X
Realistically, why would you want to replace X, in light of "Windows Managers"? Is there any purpose, considering current hardware for computer? Why isn't "Windows Manger = Shell", except for specific nitpicking? Why isn't for the vast majority of users they are not equal?
>Window Manager - window movement/placement, controls and borders.
I've shown how you can replace these things in MS Windows.
>Do you really prefer hunting through pages and pages of drop-down menus for the one checkbox that does what you want? Isn't it easier to just type 'man program' and be pointed to the right configuration file and right entry?
Um... no? Seriously, if it was easier then you wouldn't have windows (KDE, Gnome, OSX or MS) applications with configurations screens, just a help html file.
>Climing the linux learning curve is an investment that pays off tremendously.
Why is the Linux learning curve "an investment" when installing OpenOffice for Windows or learning the Windows Registry a unnessary evil?
>But in a (well-configured) APT-based Linux environment with Synaptic
In a "well-configured" Windows system its easier.
CD not in drive C:? Not configured well enough. Not automatically started? Not configured well enough. Not working for reason X? Not configured well enough.
>The original's poster's point was that it can be done. The fact that it may or may not difficult isn't really relevant.
The fact that its difficult or not is entirely the point. What good is it unless you are willing to spend hours and hours to get it done? Why not just reformat/reinstall the OS?
>Especially since the moment GNU/BSD becomes fashionable there'll be a million shell scripts to do it for you automagically
Once thats there you will have a point. But its not, so we might as well be talking about how much milage my flying car will get.
And what is preventing me from moving from Windows to BSD?
>Microsoft makes the kernel, Microsoft makes the one and only window-manager,
There are lots of third-party replacements shells for Windows.
>Microsoft selects which apps come in the one and only distro, and nearly all of them are Microsoft-made apps anyway.
Thats because they are the one distrbuting it. Doesn't RedHat select which apps come on their one and only distribution?
>the blending of the Linux kernel with a set of tools that use the kernel.
For the vast majority of users, this useless. Give them a straight kernal and a full screen command line prompt and the first thing they will ask is a windows interface.
Its like saying the Linux car is the best because all it provides is the engine, you provide the axel, car body and leather seats. But how many people would want to buy a car like this?
>They should NEVER be anything other than support to something with a development time greater than six months in the IT world. The drive for something to be delivered in a year's time should always be someone who can imagine that far out.
This is the exact problem with having tech people totally (not cooperating with) marketting/sales/user people. Technical solutions are secondary to meeting the needs of the clients and sometimes the needs of the client is non-techincal.
You are developing a product, not for yourself, but for people who will buy it. If they want shiny things that go "boing!" when you click on it, its that "wrong"? Should you not develop it?
Most marketting people don't care about "n-tiered" or "OO methology". And if they did it would be something else they can banter about with clients/end-users.
You NEED these sales/marketting people. Where do you think the specifications for what you program are from? Or do you think you know what the end-user needs are now and a year in the future?
Yes, you go on to talk about collabrating together, but statements like the one I quoted makes me wonder if you really believe it. Or when you talk about collabrating are you talking about someone getting you coffee?
>That can mean working extra hours in the crunch time, or taking off a couple hours early on Friday to play golf.
If you are doing the later, I'm sure that someone higher up would love to know about this. Either they would like to give you more work or they don't need you at all.
>Do these people really WANT to be hourly employees?
Slashdot Mirror
>More like Microsoft's human resources problem of hiring people from good colleges who lack real programming experience.
Didn't get the MS summer job either, huh?
>the merits of 1%, but Change IS Change.
The point is that is 1% large enough to be considered change, so there might not have even been change at all.
>Once they have linux installed by their grandson, it will run itself.
Until you want to use the latest USB gizmo. Or want to install pre-school software for the kids. And if you are always calling your grandson to do something what is this different from using Windows/Apple/(any other computer system)?
>Seriously, how will this stop terrorists?
I agree with you on this point. A doctor or engineer or other person with a certain level of technical knowledge could even raise up more points on how currently easy it is to cause "terrorist acts".
But, there is a certain level of responsiblity public officials have. If they didn't do anything, because its too little or too much, they are still responsible. Is the lack of inaction a greater evil than doing something, even if some think its incorrect? Can you justify producing nothing to the public?
I'm just trying to show that there is a reason why they need to do something, not the points of the specific Act.
You are currently happy with it and you can get support/parts for it why scrap it?
The most I got from the article is;
>"But it's a dinosaur, and eventually it has to go," he said.
and that its not made anymore.
Thats not a solid business case to spend 200K and risk serious business disruption.
Dear World,
You've been saying that for the last 10 years. Since then we've grown bigger, have more cash than the total worth of third world companies and are still own a huge percent of many software categories that others would die to have.
See you in 10 years from now,
Microsoft
>The mom and pop's can't compete due to VOLUME. Walmart can buy at higher volumes. They can also hire more people (at low wages... who in turn can't afford to shop anywhere but Walmart). They also have more corporate backing to push them into places where they aren't wanted. To say that the consumers decide is a bit of a joke.
Walmart/Starbucks buy at higher volumes of things.
Walmart/Starbucks has more employees.
Walmart/Starbucks have "corporate backing" (whatever this means, "mom and pops" stores are corporations)
Then because of these things, the consumer is "forced" to go into Walmart/Starbucks against their will. They, because of the way Walmart/Starbucks is set up, lose their ability to decide if they want to purchase there or not.
Could you please explain this logic? I can't see how any of the 3 points lead to your conclusion.
>What really irks me about Starbucks though is how irritated they seem when I order a small
How do they display this "irritation"?
You know that the guy serving you doesn't give a care what you buy since he gets paid by the hour regardless of what you order? In fact, he might be happy that you have such a simple order since it doesn't involve alot of work or thinking.
>A highstreet coffee shop that has been going for years might not be able to survive if it loses all its tourist trade,
So its the tourists fault for supporting the small coffee store in the first place and then moving over to StarBucks?
Any coffee store can be supported by the locals, it just depends how much the locals want to pay. Are you willing to pay $10 for a cup of coffee?
>If Valve wants gamers happy, they have to make LAN centers happy.
Why is this so? Why is my, as a gamer, happiness, tied into a LAN centre's happyness/profit making?
>the fact that he has persisted with his tinkering in the midst of an Arab culture speaks of incredible curiosity, freethinking, and persistence.
And you think that the American legal and social system encourages tinkering? Ever read the DMCA (just to name on instance)?
I assume that we are talking about America.
0 3h irschman.aspt ail.aspx?codeP =1048
> take their ass to court and ask for the evidence that you were not performing your job correctly.
The courts wouldn't care, a company can fire you for any reason at all (exceptions: you are not an at-will employee and the action does not go against laws/the Constitution), including what you do with in your private life.
http://www.shrm.org/hrmagazine/articles/0203/02
http://www.totalbusiness.org.uk/ade
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/emp08.htm
Something to listen to on the commute to work?
>unfortunately, the _mechanism_ for this removal relies on the individual software vendors
So, its not "well configured" by the individual software vendors. Hey, they need to make it more "well configured" and all the problems you pointed out will go away!
Do you see my point of things relying on how "well configured" something is?
>My television set isn't the TV signal, no matter how closely the two are related in my head.
Lets say that the my TV shows no picture. I don't know if the TV signal is messed up or my TV (or that do-hicky transistor in my tv or just the antenna or one of a thousand parts in the TV itself) or the electrical power or magical cosmic rays. The TV is out. Now there is a technical difference as in what exactly is not working as expected, the end result is that its not working.
Now if a shell = things that you click, GUI = X/things I display, windows manager = controlling borders/windows (but may or may not include how it looks or how parts act on that window), why would I care? I have a "Windowing System" that shows things/moves things around/accepts clicks and does things, isn't that one system, one "thing"?
You are saying that there is a fixed definition for parts. If it controls windows, its a Windows Manager and ONLY a Windows Manager can control windows.
To other people, all these parts are one and the same. Ask a non-technical person. Ask a non-programming/system architect X Unix person.
I still don't even see what is the practical difference between them all. You gave a nice example, but how does this apply to the real world in which someone would actually go through the trouble to do your example?
>None of these things controls or positions windows.
u =F 0Vela
h ellForWindows
>(While you do technically "manage" windows via the task bar, that is not what is meant by "Window Manager")
I don't get this. Task Bar does controls windows (close, opens, minimize, "titlebar it") but its not part of the "windows manager". Fine, so why bring it up? If it "technically" does it, why can't we count it "actually" doing it?
>It provides borders and control widgets for Windows.
Doesn't Geoshell do this?
http://www.geoshell.com/users/desktop.zoom.asp?
>It may provide hotkeys and a few things like that.
Geoshell does this.
From http://docs.geoshell.com/R4?pagename=ReplacementS
"Allows you to launch programs from buttons, from menus, from hotkeys--in any combination! (How about a hotkey that pops-up a menu of your most used applications?)"
>Even this does not replace the Windows Window Manager, it merely provides more than rudimentary theming for it.
No, it includes stuff that does more than just rudimenntary theming, as I've pointed out above.
>GUI - this is X
Realistically, why would you want to replace X, in light of "Windows Managers"? Is there any purpose, considering current hardware for computer? Why isn't "Windows Manger = Shell", except for specific nitpicking? Why isn't for the vast majority of users they are not equal?
>Window Manager - window movement/placement, controls and borders.
I've shown how you can replace these things in MS Windows.
>Do you really prefer hunting through pages and pages of drop-down menus for the one checkbox that does what you want? Isn't it easier to just type 'man program' and be pointed to the right configuration file and right entry?
Um... no? Seriously, if it was easier then you wouldn't have windows (KDE, Gnome, OSX or MS) applications with configurations screens, just a help html file.
>Climing the linux learning curve is an investment that pays off tremendously.
Why is the Linux learning curve "an investment" when installing OpenOffice for Windows or learning the Windows Registry a unnessary evil?
>But in a (well-configured) APT-based Linux environment with Synaptic
In a "well-configured" Windows system its easier.
CD not in drive C:? Not configured well enough.
Not automatically started? Not configured well enough.
Not working for reason X? Not configured well enough.
Nice once sided thinking.
>The original's poster's point was that it can be done. The fact that it may or may not difficult isn't really relevant.
The fact that its difficult or not is entirely the point. What good is it unless you are willing to spend hours and hours to get it done? Why not just reformat/reinstall the OS?
>Especially since the moment GNU/BSD becomes fashionable there'll be a million shell scripts to do it for you automagically
Once thats there you will have a point. But its not, so we might as well be talking about how much milage my flying car will get.
>with the Linux kernel you can go with BSD
And what is preventing me from moving from Windows to BSD?
>Microsoft makes the kernel, Microsoft makes the one and only window-manager,
There are lots of third-party replacements shells for Windows.
>Microsoft selects which apps come in the one and only distro, and nearly all of them are Microsoft-made apps anyway.
Thats because they are the one distrbuting it. Doesn't RedHat select which apps come on their one and only distribution?
>the blending of the Linux kernel with a set of tools that use the kernel.
For the vast majority of users, this useless. Give them a straight kernal and a full screen command line prompt and the first thing they will ask is a windows interface.
Its like saying the Linux car is the best because all it provides is the engine, you provide the axel, car body and leather seats. But how many people would want to buy a car like this?
>At best, they could come up with a combination that produces the same hash as the one given to them, but that does not mean it is the right answer.
But then why wouldn't that be good enough?
>They should NEVER be anything other than support to something with a development time greater than six months in the IT world. The drive for something to be delivered in a year's time should always be someone who can imagine that far out.
This is the exact problem with having tech people totally (not cooperating with) marketting/sales/user people. Technical solutions are secondary to meeting the needs of the clients and sometimes the needs of the client is non-techincal.
You are developing a product, not for yourself, but for people who will buy it. If they want shiny things that go "boing!" when you click on it, its that "wrong"? Should you not develop it?
Most marketting people don't care about "n-tiered" or "OO methology". And if they did it would be something else they can banter about with clients/end-users.
You NEED these sales/marketting people. Where do you think the specifications for what you program are from? Or do you think you know what the end-user needs are now and a year in the future?
Yes, you go on to talk about collabrating together, but statements like the one I quoted makes me wonder if you really believe it. Or when you talk about collabrating are you talking about someone getting you coffee?
For once I agree with moderation.
It was a mistake and hence the subject title.
>That can mean working extra hours in the crunch time, or taking off a couple hours early on Friday to play golf.
If you are doing the later, I'm sure that someone higher up would love to know about this. Either they would like to give you more work or they don't need you at all.
>Do these people really WANT to be hourly employees?
Because it enforces equal work for equal pay.
You do realize that Linux itself is a "garage basement project"?