This article is more about how the process of hammering out chips of stone in a tablet focuses the mind on the words than it is on technology. Asimov, King, Heinlein, and DeCamp all wrote about establishing a writers discipline and what it takes to get the job done. This article isn't about efficiency or technology per se. Discipline is about output over a period of time and what it takes to 'make' yourself produce. What this author is talking about is how he disciplines himself to create output. Notice that he mentions his daily time limit. Apparently, a lot of writers have to force themselves into certain constraints to get the job done.
Whatever works for him. Some people still write out their novels in long hand on lined paper.
Hahahaha... slashdot trolling, 9/10, almost farkworthy, comparing those that *aren't* okay with letting child porn and child abuse slide by with the Soviets.
I once had to write code sitting on a metal stool in an aluminum rolling plant in Muscle Shoals Alabama in the summer. The background noise level where I sat was well over 80db, and the noise peaked at something over 130db when the machine was in operation. My connection to the embedded device was a 9600 baud serial line, and the code/compile/test cycle took 30 minutes on a 25mhz AT&T server running SVr3. Every time the guys on the rolling line wanted a break, they kicked the server until it reset and they had 15 minutes to go smoke. This would of course happen in the middle of me editing code.
Aside from the 110 degree temp in the plant, 100% humidity, and horrific noise level, I had to wear a dust mask to try and filter out the particulate matter from the grinding work down the line. When I'd shower at night the drain would turn a matted grey color.
My only memories of Alabama are horrible. Other than the ribs, of course.
The pre-recorded clips are quite a comedy of errors. The CEO's walkthrough of their facility just crashed out of quicktime and back to the Mac desktop, and their 'talking heads' haven't caught it.
I'm getting sound cutting in and out, and their webcast people have messed up a couple of pre-recorded clips. Here's hoping that they are much better at private rockets than public relations.
One area where Microsoft's entry into a market does result in price pressure is in the high-end enterprise markets. Some examples of this are SharePoint and CRM. Prior to the delivery of SharePoint as a Microsoft product, vendors like Bechtel and EDS were able to charge for custom solutions in the $10k/s to $100k/s range for customized versions of their sharing apps. Afterwards, a decent section of the market on the lower end went to SharePoint. As a result, Bechtel, EDS, and for that matter even IBM now have to do the whole price/benefit dance around MS.
If you look at the history of MS's products in the enterprise markets, they have a clear (or reasonably so) strategy of acquiring or building 'adequate' low-end enterprise software and entering the market at a low price point. This has let them immediately gain market share in that market. Their follow-on strategy has always been to add the top requested features only, putting IT managers in a 90/10 bind... MS is delivering 90% of what's needed for a low price point, does the other 10% justify the higher-price spread?
A user oriented distribution of linux would need some basic re-thinking of existing linux distributions.
Kernel configuration/rebuilds should tie into the boot loader so that a kernel/system failure would allow for a boot into a known good configuration, one specified at initial ship date. You should always be able to boot into a reliable kernel for your hardware, even if very little is installed in it.
The user should never have to see a boot loader config. Upgrades to kernels should include a boot-loader update and install.
Initial system installs should be graphical, should run out of the box on 99.9% of all current hardware, and should allow for a "one click" install. This would mean a very simple, basic install with minimal fluff. The install time messages should be clear, communicate essential information, and allow going back to correct mistakes.
After-install modules should allow the user to update configurations. Example - I don't know the IP information right now, so skip that at install and run a wizard later, after I've spoken to my admin.
Installed packages, like StarOffice, should come completely integrated into the OS. Not only should they be completely installed, but they should have all the default configuration already done. The user should be able to launch from the desktop just by opening the app, and not configuration is needed. Add-on packages or plugins should already be installed for the most common needs. Examples are browser plugins, pdf readers, etc.
Windows emulation should be installed and integrated by default. The user should NOT have to know anything about installing an emulator or configuring it.
Printing, lots of printer drivers, most common configurations should all be installed and driven by a point/click wizard. Same for instant messaging.
The system should ship with an installed wizard for AOL, Earthlink, etc. that requires almost no user interaction to get running.
Automatic updates should exist, and should be pushed to the user system if the user chooses to subscribe.
It's not enough to be windows compatible or similar to windows. We need to be better than windows, easier to use, easier to configure, more productive. Until linux offers users substantive reasons to change, they won't. Free is not enough of a reason, or they'd be here by now. Free and easy is closer to a reason. Free, easy and better is a big enough reason.
Every one of those 'local' MS based jobs funnels hard currency out of the country and off to America and Mr. Gates. If those same local people learn open source, perl, php, etc they stop shipping a hunk of *THEIR* earned wages off to Redmond, pocket more money for themselves, learn a deeper skill set, and contribute to a local pool of software and skills.
Any technology transition is complicated and has costs. The upside of this transition is a larger local upside than throwing more cash at the US.
Open Source is not (for me) a creedo, it's a licensing scheme that is counter-monopolistic. You're argument misses the point of choice... making one. For a government to *choose* Open Source, they'll want to deploy it broadly and not have every single IT manager and new A+ cert holder deciding that they know best how to support the infrastructure of a government.
Is mandating across the board reductions in cash expenditures for non-domestic product unfair or counter-productive? Almost certainly not. When a second/third world economy is able to reduce its hard currency outlay for soft product, it's an across the board win. When it's further possible to use local labor for support and administration, at local labor rates, it's a larger win. When all of that can be achieved *and* they're able to use the initiative as a basis for improving the technical skills pool locally, it sure seems like a win to me.
It'll be interesting to see if they can leverage access to source and freely redistributable product into a long term cost reduction strategy. Short term the win is pretty clear. Long term, open source has some way to go in maintenance cost reduction, vis. Solaris vs. RedHat and Solaris vs. Win2k
Manned space flight is exciting, thrilling, high adventure stuff. It makes great photos. It appeals to something in every science fiction fan, every adventure fan, every person who is an explorer at heart. It really is our last untamed and unknown frontier. Watching the incredibly majestic ballet of a space station docking or recalling men walking on the surface of the moon stirs something powerful within us.
It's also really, really expensive compared to sending up rockets and manipulating robots. Virtually all the experimentation people are interested in could be performed by automated mechanisms and various forms of telepresence. Manned space flight also kills people.
Unless there is some really compelling reason to have men in space, I think it's inevitable that the US and the world in general will back away from the risks and costs. Maybe no one will explicitly say 'That's it, we're done', but it will probably happen. Unless there's a reason for us to be up there. Unless it pays for itself. Unless it's worth the risk.
What could we be doing in near-earth orbit that would be so valuable? Not a lot. Sure, make arguments about micro-gravity science, but really, machines can do the work. Nope, the value isn't in near-earth orbit. It's a bit farther out.
If I recall correctly, a surface to orbit elevator on the moon would be a tiny fraction of the cost of an earth-lift elevator. What could we produce from mining the moon? What could we do with a stable mining colony there?
I think that if we're going to go to space, lets *GO* and make it pay. Otherwise, humans have no business up there. Too risky, too costly. Add the no-kidding reality of making money and it'll happen.
Slashdot Mirror
This article is more about how the process of hammering out chips of stone in a tablet focuses the mind on the words than it is on technology. Asimov, King, Heinlein, and DeCamp all wrote about establishing a writers discipline and what it takes to get the job done. This article isn't about efficiency or technology per se. Discipline is about output over a period of time and what it takes to 'make' yourself produce. What this author is talking about is how he disciplines himself to create output. Notice that he mentions his daily time limit. Apparently, a lot of writers have to force themselves into certain constraints to get the job done.
Whatever works for him. Some people still write out their novels in long hand on lined paper.
Hahahaha... slashdot trolling, 9/10, almost farkworthy, comparing those that *aren't* okay with letting child porn and child abuse slide by with the Soviets.
I once had to write code sitting on a metal stool in an aluminum rolling plant in Muscle Shoals Alabama in the summer. The background noise level where I sat was well over 80db, and the noise peaked at something over 130db when the machine was in operation. My connection to the embedded device was a 9600 baud serial line, and the code/compile/test cycle took 30 minutes on a 25mhz AT&T server running SVr3. Every time the guys on the rolling line wanted a break, they kicked the server until it reset and they had 15 minutes to go smoke. This would of course happen in the middle of me editing code.
Aside from the 110 degree temp in the plant, 100% humidity, and horrific noise level, I had to wear a dust mask to try and filter out the particulate matter from the grinding work down the line. When I'd shower at night the drain would turn a matted grey color.
My only memories of Alabama are horrible. Other than the ribs, of course.
No. "Hawthorne, we have an Anomaly"
Anomaly reported, cameras turned off. Interesting.
After a restart from 500ms, they launched successfully. I'm very impressed by the short cycle time.
aborted at launch time
Clock reset and counting again.
The pre-recorded clips are quite a comedy of errors. The CEO's walkthrough of their facility just crashed out of quicktime and back to the Mac desktop, and their 'talking heads' haven't caught it.
I'm getting sound cutting in and out, and their webcast people have messed up a couple of pre-recorded clips. Here's hoping that they are much better at private rockets than public relations.
The webcast is now live.
You're correct, 'Sir' ... that most assuredly *is* tiny.
One area where Microsoft's entry into a market does result in price pressure is in the high-end enterprise markets. Some examples of this are SharePoint and CRM. Prior to the delivery of SharePoint as a Microsoft product, vendors like Bechtel and EDS were able to charge for custom solutions in the $10k/s to $100k/s range for customized versions of their sharing apps. Afterwards, a decent section of the market on the lower end went to SharePoint. As a result, Bechtel, EDS, and for that matter even IBM now have to do the whole price/benefit dance around MS.
If you look at the history of MS's products in the enterprise markets, they have a clear (or reasonably so) strategy of acquiring or building 'adequate' low-end enterprise software and entering the market at a low price point. This has let them immediately gain market share in that market. Their follow-on strategy has always been to add the top requested features only, putting IT managers in a 90/10 bind... MS is delivering 90% of what's needed for a low price point, does the other 10% justify the higher-price spread?
A user oriented distribution of linux would need some basic re-thinking of existing linux distributions.
Kernel configuration/rebuilds should tie into the boot loader so that a kernel/system failure would allow for a boot into a known good configuration, one specified at initial ship date. You should always be able to boot into a reliable kernel for your hardware, even if very little is installed in it.
The user should never have to see a boot loader config. Upgrades to kernels should include a boot-loader update and install.
Initial system installs should be graphical, should run out of the box on 99.9% of all current hardware, and should allow for a "one click" install. This would mean a very simple, basic install with minimal fluff. The install time messages should be clear, communicate essential information, and allow going back to correct mistakes.
After-install modules should allow the user to update configurations. Example - I don't know the IP information right now, so skip that at install and run a wizard later, after I've spoken to my admin.
Installed packages, like StarOffice, should come completely integrated into the OS. Not only should they be completely installed, but they should have all the default configuration already done. The user should be able to launch from the desktop just by opening the app, and not configuration is needed. Add-on packages or plugins should already be installed for the most common needs. Examples are browser plugins, pdf readers, etc.
Windows emulation should be installed and integrated by default. The user should NOT have to know anything about installing an emulator or configuring it.
Printing, lots of printer drivers, most common configurations should all be installed and driven by a point/click wizard. Same for instant messaging.
The system should ship with an installed wizard for AOL, Earthlink, etc. that requires almost no user interaction to get running.
Automatic updates should exist, and should be pushed to the user system if the user chooses to subscribe.
It's not enough to be windows compatible or similar to windows. We need to be better than windows, easier to use, easier to configure, more productive. Until linux offers users substantive reasons to change, they won't. Free is not enough of a reason, or they'd be here by now. Free and easy is closer to a reason. Free, easy and better is a big enough reason.
Every one of those 'local' MS based jobs funnels hard currency out of the country and off to America and Mr. Gates. If those same local people learn open source, perl, php, etc they stop shipping a hunk of *THEIR* earned wages off to Redmond, pocket more money for themselves, learn a deeper skill set, and contribute to a local pool of software and skills.
Any technology transition is complicated and has costs. The upside of this transition is a larger local upside than throwing more cash at the US.
Open Source is not (for me) a creedo, it's a licensing scheme that is counter-monopolistic. You're argument misses the point of choice... making one. For a government to *choose* Open Source, they'll want to deploy it broadly and not have every single IT manager and new A+ cert holder deciding that they know best how to support the infrastructure of a government.
Your view leads to chaos, not choice.
Is mandating across the board reductions in cash expenditures for non-domestic product unfair or counter-productive? Almost certainly not. When a second/third world economy is able to reduce its hard currency outlay for soft product, it's an across the board win. When it's further possible to use local labor for support and administration, at local labor rates, it's a larger win. When all of that can be achieved *and* they're able to use the initiative as a basis for improving the technical skills pool locally, it sure seems like a win to me.
It'll be interesting to see if they can leverage access to source and freely redistributable product into a long term cost reduction strategy. Short term the win is pretty clear. Long term, open source has some way to go in maintenance cost reduction, vis. Solaris vs. RedHat and Solaris vs. Win2k
Manned space flight is exciting, thrilling, high adventure stuff. It makes great photos. It appeals to something in every science fiction fan, every adventure fan, every person who is an explorer at heart. It really is our last untamed and unknown frontier. Watching the incredibly majestic ballet of a space station docking or recalling men walking on the surface of the moon stirs something powerful within us.
It's also really, really expensive compared to sending up rockets and manipulating robots. Virtually all the experimentation people are interested in could be performed by automated mechanisms and various forms of telepresence. Manned space flight also kills people.
Unless there is some really compelling reason to have men in space, I think it's inevitable that the US and the world in general will back away from the risks and costs. Maybe no one will explicitly say 'That's it, we're done', but it will probably happen. Unless there's a reason for us to be up there. Unless it pays for itself. Unless it's worth the risk.
What could we be doing in near-earth orbit that would be so valuable? Not a lot. Sure, make arguments about micro-gravity science, but really, machines can do the work. Nope, the value isn't in near-earth orbit. It's a bit farther out.
If I recall correctly, a surface to orbit elevator on the moon would be a tiny fraction of the cost of an earth-lift elevator. What could we produce from mining the moon? What could we do with a stable mining colony there?
I think that if we're going to go to space, lets *GO* and make it pay. Otherwise, humans have no business up there. Too risky, too costly. Add the no-kidding reality of making money and it'll happen.