Exactly. The writer base of Slashdot is people like us who make comments.
It is bad enough having many people making rash pronouncements on things they do not fully understand but to pay to read that is something else.
I'm doing a lot less/. reading these days and using NewsForge more, and I can't say I actually miss it as much as I thought. I read this story a good 4/5 days before it appeared on here, for example.
Free is fine, but until someone can think of something worthwhile to pay for on Slashdot...
When the Wright Brothers flew no one had flown before. We've gone into space already. We know how difficult it is. As someone has already pointed out - this IS rocket science!
The reason why you'd not have the guts to do it is because it is staggeringly dangerous and almost certainly going to end with the loss of the pilot's life or, if they are very lucky, severe injury.
NASA, for all their immense expertise and money, couldn't stop people from dying in their space program so what chances do you give an amateur effort?
It only takes a little comparison to real space programs to see that what they are doing is sheer lunacy. On the same day someone launched a more powerful rocket motor and said they wanted to put up satellites, not passengers. Why? They needed to prove they were reliable, then would make money from satellite launches. That's sensible.
What is not sensible (and what brings some people out in giggles) is: "Thursday's blast-off at Morecambe Bay would pave the way for a manned launch next year, Mr Bennett said." I am not laughing, just sad.
That's entirely unrelated to what I was saying, well done!
It appears Microsoft, despite being a monopoly, can include what they want with their OS.
Oh well. Nothing you or I can do now.
As for those poor souls who shall be sucked down the path to a Microsoft-dominated Internet, I wish them luck.
Get them interested in....non-peer reviewed science?
Well I've got a theory that we're all living inside a giant cosmic nostril. I could get someone to print that in a journal without getting decent peer review, get publicity and call it 'science' but I doubt it's very helpful.
If it is imperative that absurd ideas like that get peer review then why not all science?
>Heck including the browser with the OS was such
>an incredible leap in usefulness of the OS that
>it threatened to shake the very foundations of
>the computer software world.
No, that's entirely wrong. You don't get any extra functionality from the browser sharing lots of code with the operating system. Just because the idea is nice to you (and to many it is abhorrent and silly) doesn't mean it's more useful.
As for shaking the foundations of the computer world...
It's just one part of a much larger history being written.
There are a lot of assumptions to be made before agreeing with the article. First of all you have to assume that Microsoft will continue to produce what people are prepared to accept. Then you must assume that they will continue to make changes that Linux software must track accordingly, if it wishes to offer the same features that desktop users are familiar with.
But what if the second assumption is thrown out the window and Linux produces something different, and better? It's a huge 'if', sadly, because ground-breaking technology is not always so apparent in the Open Source/Free Software world.
It is not too unreasonable to assume that developers will continue to play catch-up.
Given how tricky many people find Word etc. to use it is not too unreasonable to expect Microsoft to find room for improvement either, giving Linux apps something new to chase.
The desire to see people move away from developing the desktop to enterprise software is really hoping for too much.
It forgets that developers will generally tend to scratch personal itches. If they want something to be written they'll help in doing so.
Many developers want neat tools on their desktop and supplying the needs of business is not foremost in their minds. You can't expect them to move across readily.
I agree with the article, but regret doing so. Like most people I'd love to have it proved wrong eventually.
No there was a coding for everything that was put down. There is not going to be a code for Jedi once everything has been counted up cos they file that one neatly under 'other' and that is how the final data is going to look.
If you're being serious (which I suspect not) the performance would be whatever it was engineered to be, as this is such a fanciful idea no one has bothered to come up with such a solution yet.
I think there are noe 14.GHz MP-certified Athlons out.
You pay an wful lot for that certification it seems, but then for work machines you'll always be happy to do so.
Microsoft software was slow, yes, but consider that processor speed has been continuing to follow Moore's Law and software like Office clearly hasn't become so big and lumbering at the same rate.
IE is actually pretty fast these days, or at least fast enough. It would be nice if Mozilla were able to outdo it in terms of speed and perhaps force Microsoft ro re-evaluate the speed of their browser.
Of course I'm dreaming.:-/
Re:notoriously buggy?
on
Netscape 6.1
·
· Score: 1
It's stable....it has a nice mail client....erm...that's it?
It has an appalling amount of support for recent web standards, it doesn't render things right even when it 'supports' them, it is VERY slow to render in certain cirumstances, it is not a browser that I enjoy writing sites for.
Netscape 6 and Mozilla are much nicer in this regard, as is IE.
Ah, here we hit upon the crux of the matter. Of course Microsoft will be nice to developers. Developers help Microsoft maintain a monopoly on the desktop and to attain a large section of the server market.
This is not doing them a favour, this is simply supplying the people that form an industry around your product with the information that they require to continue to make that industry productive.
A favour in the sense I meant it (sorry I was half-serious) would be where they do something for someone else with no obvious gain. Goodwill is always a potential gain but we can't quantify that and neither can a company.
I hasten to add I don't expect ANY large corporation to do these things. It's far too easy to single out Microsoft though.:-)
You're misrepresenting my major point about the bases. The other point is historical and I have more important concerns anyway but the point about NMD bases on UK soil is very important.
When US nukes came onto British soil people were upset about it making us a target but now the game has changed. Then there was clearly a very strong case to be made for nukes coming onto our soil. We were part of NATO and we had a major enemy in the form of the Warsaw pact about 1000 miles away.
Now we are in a post-Cold War era and the UK is no longer under threat in the way it was.
I do not know of any plans to protect the UK under NMD, and although this has been vaguely mooted clearly such protection would be limited at best.
It is not in the interests of the US to bother protecting the UK. I don't ask that it does, either. What I do ask is that we are not made a weak link in the NMD chain by having listening stations on our soil.
I dunno, 'rouge' is French for 'red' which to many people still conjures up images of people in those weird fur hats sitting around drinking vodka whilst plotting to overthrow the US.:-)
Erm, no we've never relied on US protection, that's a tad revisionist. Since the 50s the UK had it's own nuclear deterent, and while allying with such a powerful nation definitely has security advantages it wasn't a case of a defenceless island cuddling up to the US for help.
We merely cuddled up with our own nukes.:-)
Personally I don't care what the US does with NMD within its own borders. As long as we're not made into a sitting duck target with British-based installations listening for missiles then that is fine.
Else we get clobbered cheaply - does the US wish to start global nuclear war over us?
I live about 55 miles from the sea but only 4 metres above mean sea level. If sea levels rise like they are predicted to do then I'm going to end up living a lot closer to the beach which, while is a nice though, means in 40 years loads of top quality farmland is going to be wiped out along with homes, industry and the region's economy.
I'm waiting for the flooding, but if it doesn't come I'll be mightily relieved.
Sorry but are you expecting people to go out and "research" stuff and get results similar to that which professional scientists obtain?
Agreed - more people should look the facts up BUT they should do so with an open mind, not as a reaction to the perceived status quo in the scientific community.
By that logic Red Hat should be selling versions of Windows cos it's more popular.
MySQL has speed advantages in certain conditions, as does PostgreSQL, but Red Hat need features that enable them to compete.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. The writer base of Slashdot is people like us who make comments. /. reading these days and using NewsForge more, and I can't say I actually miss it as much as I thought. I read this story a good 4/5 days before it appeared on here, for example.
It is bad enough having many people making rash pronouncements on things they do not fully understand but to pay to read that is something else.
I'm doing a lot less
Free is fine, but until someone can think of something worthwhile to pay for on Slashdot...
When the Wright Brothers flew no one had flown before. We've gone into space already. We know how difficult it is. As someone has already pointed out - this IS rocket science!
The reason why you'd not have the guts to do it is because it is staggeringly dangerous and almost certainly going to end with the loss of the pilot's life or, if they are very lucky, severe injury.
NASA, for all their immense expertise and money, couldn't stop people from dying in their space program so what chances do you give an amateur effort?
It only takes a little comparison to real space programs to see that what they are doing is sheer lunacy. On the same day someone launched a more powerful rocket motor and said they wanted to put up satellites, not passengers. Why? They needed to prove they were reliable, then would make money from satellite launches. That's sensible.
What is not sensible (and what brings some people out in giggles) is: "Thursday's blast-off at Morecambe Bay would pave the way for a manned launch next year, Mr Bennett said."
I am not laughing, just sad.
That's entirely unrelated to what I was saying, well done!
It appears Microsoft, despite being a monopoly, can include what they want with their OS.
Oh well. Nothing you or I can do now.
As for those poor souls who shall be sucked down the path to a Microsoft-dominated Internet, I wish them luck.
Get them interested in....non-peer reviewed science?
Well I've got a theory that we're all living inside a giant cosmic nostril. I could get someone to print that in a journal without getting decent peer review, get publicity and call it 'science' but I doubt it's very helpful.
If it is imperative that absurd ideas like that get peer review then why not all science?
>Heck including the browser with the OS was such
>an incredible leap in usefulness of the OS that
>it threatened to shake the very foundations of
>the computer software world.
No, that's entirely wrong. You don't get any extra functionality from the browser sharing lots of code with the operating system. Just because the idea is nice to you (and to many it is abhorrent and silly) doesn't mean it's more useful.
As for shaking the foundations of the computer world...
It's just one part of a much larger history being written.
> I've even used perl professionally as the only
> language on a large website project, and for
> programming in the large it sucks.
You forgot to add the 'in my humble opinion' phrase that turns your statement from meaningless rant to reasonable comment.
There are a lot of assumptions to be made before agreeing with the article. First of all you have to assume that Microsoft will continue to produce what people are prepared to accept. Then you must assume that they will continue to make changes that Linux software must track accordingly, if it wishes to offer the same features that desktop users are familiar with.
But what if the second assumption is thrown out the window and Linux produces something different, and better? It's a huge 'if', sadly, because ground-breaking technology is not always so apparent in the Open Source/Free Software world.
It is not too unreasonable to assume that developers will continue to play catch-up.
Given how tricky many people find Word etc. to use it is not too unreasonable to expect Microsoft to find room for improvement either, giving Linux apps something new to chase.
The desire to see people move away from developing the desktop to enterprise software is really hoping for too much.
It forgets that developers will generally tend to scratch personal itches. If they want something to be written they'll help in doing so.
Many developers want neat tools on their desktop and supplying the needs of business is not foremost in their minds. You can't expect them to move across readily.
I agree with the article, but regret doing so. Like most people I'd love to have it proved wrong eventually.
No there was a coding for everything that was put down. There is not going to be a code for Jedi once everything has been counted up cos they file that one neatly under 'other' and that is how the final data is going to look.
If you're being serious (which I suspect not) the performance would be whatever it was engineered to be, as this is such a fanciful idea no one has bothered to come up with such a solution yet.
Cos the chips wouldn't fit.
I think there are noe 14.GHz MP-certified Athlons out.
You pay an wful lot for that certification it seems, but then for work machines you'll always be happy to do so.
IDE is clearly going to be fast enough for everyone who doesn't need the kind of sustained throughput that SCSI allows.
Microsoft software was slow, yes, but consider that processor speed has been continuing to follow Moore's Law and software like Office clearly hasn't become so big and lumbering at the same rate. :-/
IE is actually pretty fast these days, or at least fast enough. It would be nice if Mozilla were able to outdo it in terms of speed and perhaps force Microsoft ro re-evaluate the speed of their browser.
Of course I'm dreaming.
windows v. to break. horribly.
It's stable....it has a nice mail client....erm...that's it?
It has an appalling amount of support for recent web standards, it doesn't render things right even when it 'supports' them, it is VERY slow to render in certain cirumstances, it is not a browser that I enjoy writing sites for.
Netscape 6 and Mozilla are much nicer in this regard, as is IE.
Ah, here we hit upon the crux of the matter. Of course Microsoft will be nice to developers. Developers help Microsoft maintain a monopoly on the desktop and to attain a large section of the server market. :-)
This is not doing them a favour, this is simply supplying the people that form an industry around your product with the information that they require to continue to make that industry productive.
A favour in the sense I meant it (sorry I was half-serious) would be where they do something for someone else with no obvious gain. Goodwill is always a potential gain but we can't quantify that and neither can a company.
I hasten to add I don't expect ANY large corporation to do these things. It's far too easy to single out Microsoft though.
In all honesty did you expect Microsoft to ever do anyone favours? :-)
Favours do not a big profit make!
You're misrepresenting my major point about the bases. The other point is historical and I have more important concerns anyway but the point about NMD bases on UK soil is very important.
When US nukes came onto British soil people were upset about it making us a target but now the game has changed. Then there was clearly a very strong case to be made for nukes coming onto our soil. We were part of NATO and we had a major enemy in the form of the Warsaw pact about 1000 miles away.
Now we are in a post-Cold War era and the UK is no longer under threat in the way it was.
I do not know of any plans to protect the UK under NMD, and although this has been vaguely mooted clearly such protection would be limited at best.
It is not in the interests of the US to bother protecting the UK. I don't ask that it does, either. What I do ask is that we are not made a weak link in the NMD chain by having listening stations on our soil.
I dunno, 'rouge' is French for 'red' which to many people still conjures up images of people in those weird fur hats sitting around drinking vodka whilst plotting to overthrow the US. :-)
Erm, no we've never relied on US protection, that's a tad revisionist. Since the 50s the UK had it's own nuclear deterent, and while allying with such a powerful nation definitely has security advantages it wasn't a case of a defenceless island cuddling up to the US for help. :-)
We merely cuddled up with our own nukes.
Personally I don't care what the US does with NMD within its own borders. As long as we're not made into a sitting duck target with British-based installations listening for missiles then that is fine.
Else we get clobbered cheaply - does the US wish to start global nuclear war over us?
The Earth is indeed very adaptable. The only problem is that we're less so.
I live about 55 miles from the sea but only 4 metres above mean sea level. If sea levels rise like they are predicted to do then I'm going to end up living a lot closer to the beach which, while is a nice though, means in 40 years loads of top quality farmland is going to be wiped out along with homes, industry and the region's economy.
I'm waiting for the flooding, but if it doesn't come I'll be mightily relieved.
Sorry but are you expecting people to go out and "research" stuff and get results similar to that which professional scientists obtain?
Agreed - more people should look the facts up BUT they should do so with an open mind, not as a reaction to the perceived status quo in the scientific community.
Not one country has ratified it cos without the US it's worthless.
By that logic Red Hat should be selling versions of Windows cos it's more popular.
MySQL has speed advantages in certain conditions, as does PostgreSQL, but Red Hat need features that enable them to compete.