If you want more people to use Linux, the best tool by far will be to make it usable by the general public, as easy and understandable as Windows is.
I will not be modded up for this, becuase it's truth. Truth, people actively ignore.
It burns me up every time someone claims that what is written on the chains holding Linux down has anything to do with ease of use.
Have we forgotten computing history? Are we that afriad of what needs to be done, we blatantly walk straight into a wall head first with ignorance?
Ease of use, has never to this day played a role in the popularity and market dominance of a computer operating system. Or, VCR, automobile, cell phone or any other interactive device.
Maybe, the problem is, most people here used to be Macintosh haters just three or so years ago. Oh, you heard about how easy the Mac was, so easy infact trolls still try to make a wise crack about the one-button mouse. It's always been a wonder to the Mac community, how Microsoft managed to surpass Apple hiding behind the command prompt. While we all have our business and economics degrees that give us a lame authority to try to define Apples blunders, the fact remains many geeks criticized Mac users because THERE WASN'T A COMMAND LINE!
Now, we point at the crippled Windows command line interface, and cry about Linux's ease of use!
Linux's ease of use is irrelevant. I don't care how many people scream otherwise. Linux has so many other qualities that if we focus on them, we will prevail. Who here started using Linux becuase it was "easy to use"? Noone. Who here started using Linux becuase of the liberty entailed in Open Source, the efficiency of Open Source, the control? I wonder if there is a high percentage of Linux users driving cars with manual transmissions... I do! I don't find it a coincedence either! When I was concerned with ease of use, I used a Macintosh. To this day, when ease of use is heavily on my mind, I recommend a Macintosh.
Microsoft displayed that market control can be easily acheived without ease of use. Or senseable use for that matter, they still haven't mastered cut and paste. But, we don't like how they did it. So we think we are better than they are, and we should come out on top if we don't stoop to their level. That's just plain fantasy, it never pans out in the end. There's a reality here, the man willing to kick the other in the balls will always be left standing. If you want to defeat such a person, you had better drop some morals otherwise you'll be hunched over in agony.
We can do this without zealotry, blind advocacy... but we can't do it if we constantly try to find a cause to the problem, we feel most comfortable with. Linux doesn't lack 95% of the market becuase it is hard to use. Linux lacks 95% of the market becuase it's users are hunched over on the side-walk thinking they are in pain becuase their shoes weren't tied right.
Many years ago, I worked at a fast food joint. Pretty common first job for Americans my age I guess, but I remember spending a 18 hour day becuase supplies didn't show up till 2am in the morning.
At the time, I was happy thinking about the overtime check, but the manager came up with some kind of lame excuse why it's technically not overtime. Saying something like I wasn't working for many of the hours (you know, forced attendance waiting for the truck to show up.) and that the company policy allowed to shave off 'X' number of overtime hours.
Basically, in the end, I never saw the 8 hours of overtime I was supposed to have. Of course, if you challange the overtime scam, you are faced with likely termination. If you are working at a fast food joint, you probably can't afford that.
I'll put accurate, current physical contact information in my whois data when I finally get a P.O. Box or some such obscure, vague association to my whereabouts.
I think the only people really complaining about this sort of thing are lawyers and companies looking to screw over the individual.
RIAA: "He has a domain name!? Quick, I know a 31337 trick! 'WHO IZ' his domain name to get l337 infoz! Then we can get him!"
Later.
RIAA: "What the hell is this? A run down shack in the middle of the desert? Obviously, the terrorist mp3 file sharer has tricked us and our super-hacker 'WHO IZ' trick! What else can we do?"
RIAA Lawyer: "Let's see into making it more difficult to use contact data for domain registration. That way, you can easily find all your terrorists with your elite 'WHO IZ' uber-hacker skillz!"
Microsoft is 'working with microprocessor companies, including Intel and AMD, to help Windows...support hardware-enforced data execute protection (also known as NX, or no execute)'.
Isn't this kinda like finger pointing? Microsoft doesn't want to fix problems on their side so they ask that the chip manufacturers shield the problem.
I can hear the hardware and software engineers blaming each other right now.
Interesting. I didn't know fingerprinting could prevent people from flying planes into buildings.
How, pray tell, would fingerprints distinguish a legal visitor who wants to go to disneyland, and a legal visitor who wants to hijack a plane and fly it into a building?
If the hijacker has no previous criminal record, as with 9/11 IIRC, why would this possibly be of use?
I hate to say this, and this isn't my deepest sentiment, but logically....
The ONLY reason, snot nosed foriegners are able to step foot in America is becuase the half-wit leaders never asked American citizens if foriegners should be allowed in!
Maybe if they asked, I would for once vote!
Countries where I would accept visitors from had better condition their citizens with a degree of f*cking respect too! If I say wipe your feet on the way in, that's what you best do before entering my house. Stop b*tching! I have a Japanese friend that demands I take my shoes completely off, so it's not that bad!
I consider myself a UNIX geek. I also have a Power Mac running Apples latest and greatest. Ease of use had nothing to do with my decision to purchase this Mac. I really do not accept any claim that ease of use is why one chooses a platform over another, quite simply becuase if that were the truth Apple would likely have remained King of the Hill from the beginning. But, Microsoft, with DOS in short order overcame "ease of use".
Why I chose the Power Mac.
It's UNIX. The cheapest UNIX desktop you can purchase. (I'm not referring to home grown Linux boxes here.) Look at a AIX workstation from IBM, price Sun's latest desktop offerings. Then, look at Apple's. But, most importantly MacOS X has much more corporate support so that means it has games, applications that Linux doesn't have. It's sweet to have Gimp running beside PhotoShop, or Mozilla running beside Internet Explorer, Star Office running next to Microsoft's Office for Macintosh. Should I mention, all of these being NATIVE as well? To me, that's a big plus.
I argue, that overnight, Apple went from having the least amount of software available to it's Mac platform, to having more software than any other platform in existance. Not only can you run 99% of all the Open Source software, you can run many of the commercial applications too. I find that awesome.
They also seemed to have defied the natural order of compensation. They have managed to make UNIX very easy to use for the average user, while maintaining an in-depth use for geeks of all levels. To me, that's like a world class bodybuilder who is also a world class chess champion and Noble nominee. Not saying that's impossible, just saying it's odd and odd for reasons stemming from experience. Like the drop-dead gorgeous babe with the hottest body, also being a semester away from a Ph.D in astro-physics or some such field.
I'm a UNIX geek. I'm also a IT professional. I have no ground to complain about ease of use, by doing so I imply my weakness and lack of skill and or knowledge!
If they'll send a teenager to court for offering a gig or two of mp3s, surely they'll happily beat the life out of a mugger that steals 10-20-40GB of mp3s!
I'm sure this idea has been relayed already, but I'm going to mention it again. Emphasis in this matter certainly deserves no bounds.
9/11, Chernobyl (if there could be a comparison) are prime examples that at a moments notice, your Life can be flipped upside down.
I also live in San Diego. I wonder how many other San Diegans realize one of the largest fusion reactors in the world sits right in their back yard? http://www.gat.com
Microsoft has it's purpose. I think we are mostly concerned with their practices, but generally I think Microsoft makes an OK product for non professionals.
We (or I) want diversity. I want documents, regardless of their format to not pose a problem regardless of platform. People will ALWAYS purchase commercial software, if anything, to pay for the convience of NOT having to build it on their own. Or, as odd as it may seem, some will pay to generate a feeling of value in their merchandise; this can be seen in the clothing industry from all angles, otherwise known publicly as 'buying the name' such as Nike versus shoes from the 99cent rack.
I think, a world without Microsoft (assuming a Microsoft that is NOT unruly), is a world contrary to what we really want or imply we want.
The day all of my computers, can be 100% compatible with Windows (documents, file sharing, database access etc.) is the day I'll purchase and use a version of Windows. Till then, Windows will continue to be the odd ball on my network, relatively handicapped and limited.
Linux (and more importantly, the applications that the big dogs like IBM and Novell are now pushing on it) will never mature to a usable level until it gets corporate desktop exposure.
I totally disagree. Corporations are the last place for ideas. I do not understand this general support for corporations across the globe. They are inherently evil due to the fact that humans are in charge and worse, given the lawful rights to over-endulge in greed and oppression. [Which oppression is always the result of greed.]
Linux is extremely useful as it is. If you disagree, it's becuase you don't know it well enough. Intuition only goes so far, and I heard the same argument against MacOS, and MacOS is high up on the pole for ease of use and intuitive design. Bottom line, if you don't find it useable, you don't know the system very well becuase all the functionality is there just as it's in Windows or any other platform.
Not to sound elitist, but I don't care for Linux to be way too easy. People need to know fundamentals about computers, and frankly, I don't care if all they want to do is to check email once a day.
Having a corporation submit ideas, and those ideas be taken seriously is a sure sign of failure in the philosophy and general design of the Linux operating system. Windows, for example, is a demonstration of how ignorant corporate ideas are. And Linux will fall victim to the idiotic requests of corporations just as all senseless functionality in Windows, such as having an excel spread sheet within an email.
Corporate interests do not mix well with engineer's interests, look at the tragedies of NASA for a prime example. To an Open Source developer today, a problem must be fixed if one is found. A corporate analysis of the same problem might be similar to "Oh, the user isn't supposed to type that in. There's no problem, here ignore that bug and add this 'functionality'". This happens to this day, ontop of time limits putting strain on developers to hurry up and pop something out that "works" i.e. medocrity, versus allowing him all the time he needs to thouroughly think about the best way to acheive a solution.
Lastly, I'm positive that there are far more home desktops than their are corporate desktops.
I didn't purchase a Dell pre-installed Linux system becuase, only business could purchase them. And, those consumer targetted Linux pre-installed systems are crap. Machines with crappy processors, crappy video cards, crappy RAM and harddrives, and at a similar cost as if Windows was preinstalled. Forgive me if I'm incorrect, but wasn't that the main question for VA Linux hardware? Specifically their laptops; which seemed more expensive than the Windows pre-installed competition?
They need to seriously allow choice across the board, on all hardware sold to business and consumers. That's my feeling on it, and all the hardware should reflect a considerable price decrease if Linux is chosen.
I'm using SETI just like many others are. I have it running on several machines and I average about 10 work units a day.
How, exactly are we supposed to identify intelligent construction or manipulation? That's basically what we are trying to identify right? A pattern, that doesn't fit a natural chaotic pattern, thus must have been controlled or manipulated for a particular purpose signifying intelligent intent. Am I wrong?
Now, here's the dilemma, if I recall correctly life on earth is heavily carbon based. Organic chemistry contributes this to carbons valency of 4 right? It's been years since I took chemistry, so I might be rusty. But other elements, possibly with a valency of 4, could very well be a basis for life, I think silicon is one of them.
Well, we can try to speculate the intelligence of some life form based off of a different element all we want, but let's veer from the psuedo science and go with something a little more documented or practical.
I find it difficult to believe, that we are the only star with a planet in the right position to sustain life AS WE KNOW IT. There are billions of stars in our galaxy, there are billions of galaxies in our spacial quadrant and there are... point is, there is A LOT of stuff out there, and we really have no clue how much.
How is it possible to identify patterns unknown? We speculate, or assume that intelligent life will use radio waves or some such. I argue this to be impossible and that we are looking for the wrong things. Radio waves may be a viable thing to look for, if looking for a civilization at approximately our level. But, since the dawn of man, there have been documented accounts of aliens or the like for thousands of years, yesterday, today, and there will eventually be more tomorrow. If an Alien space craft had travelled to earth, the closest star is Alpha Centauri right? That's something like 13 light years away? So advanced to travel that distance, reasonably, yet have communications so primative to have an approximate 13 year lag? No, I think such beings would be using a form of communications that is a little faster. So by looking for radio emissions, the most we are hoping for is to locate a civilization that was as advanced as ours is TODAY, ATLEAST 13 years ago (Assuming we find something interesting coming from Alpha Centauri right?). Then comes the question, if we find distinguishable patterns come from an object that's a 100 million light years away... boy that will make us feel undeveloped, stupid and rather pathetic wouldn't it? I mean, they are a ~100 million years ahead of us right? Who wants to be mentioned at the end of the race as the one who came in dead last? Announcing something like that, is like announcing, "NASA has just verified, that the human species is a 100 million years behind 'X' species located on ''."
What about the possibility, that life on other planets surpassed us a thousand years ago. But since they are several thousand light years away, we'll have no clue until they are banging on our front door. "Hi, how are ya? We noticed you are trying to look for us, we thought we'd speed things along..."
Also, and the most practical, I argue that if I took a circuit board and buried it in the dirt. Two thousand years from now, it will not be recognizable as a mark of intelligence. The patterns would just seem too coincedental, and if not look at in the right percpective it will totally be missed. Much like, in modern times the Nazca Lines in Peru. If you aren't at the right angle (very high up), you will not identify a pattern signifying intelligent intent.
SETI is fun, but I highly doubt we'll have any conclusive evidence derive from it. But, out of principle it needs funding. I think, SETI has already found evidence, we just don't know how to interpret it to identify it's presence in the data.
He states a computer expert in North Korea can download Linux and create a super-computer. Yet I'm sure the same expert can download some ISOs of Windows from somewhere
Let's be honest for a moment. Darl might have a point. If we consider the quality of Microsoft software, it would be very disturbing to find that a Tactical Nuclear weapons was developed, managed and secured by Windows. Using Linux for the research, development and security would imply a level of competence which might lead to success.
[I]On the other hand I know of hundreds of Americans who can?t even spell well, and this is their mother tongue.[/I]
Casual, spoken language of any language is often totally different than what the established grammatical rules suggest. It's the key to an evolving language. If I learned a foriegn language, I'd speak it better than the native speakers in respect to structure and grammer. Still, I will not be able to communicate 100% either way. And for example, you're English grammer is rather nice, but you are still a foriegner by style; becuase I've never heard a native English speaker use "mother" to describe a first language. So, just by using a single word incorrectly (though grammatically fine), you stand out pal.
[I]Technology is no different. You find the best, the brightest out here too. As Americans you really need to ponder over the fact that it has been over 200 years since it was proved that the Universe isn't America/Earth centric.[/I]
No doubt, there are bright people in India. So bright, they have forgotten to start their own software business to later become the next Microsoft. Well, that's an unfair stab, but what is typical is a foriegner bagging on Americans whenever the American is trying to protect his interest. I know that America isn't the center of the universe, I also disagree with our involvement with the rest of the world. Which would include our out of control outsourcing. I want America to remove the barn doors from our ports, I also want America to stop sending our troops everywhere. We baked our apple pie, and you're pissed when we start asking you what you did to help make it. Dependance on others is a sign of weakness, if you guys are that good in software, then compete. Start your own business.
[I]Break that shell, go places, live cheaper. The sun doesn?t rotate around America anymore, or India . . . or even China.[/I]
I just might, but you best not muster the audacity to suggest it. I'm a patriot, I love my country right or wrong. I also love my people, those I grew up with, those I look up to. I do NOT want to see them have a hard time raising their children, I do not want to see them struggle through a depression. You think Americans are unaware of the worldly horrors that plague this planet from one country to the next. You are dead wrong, we do know and that's why we are so adamant in trying to not end up in the same position.
[I]AND FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME NOW: THE WORLD, ITS RESOURCES, AND ITS PEOPLE ARE THE SAME EVERYWHERE.[/I]
No, the worlds resources and the people are NOT the same. The worlds wealth is fixed, the resources are finite and the people have human characteristics that make each one unique.
While there may be more currency today, than what might have been in circulation in the 1600's, still the amount of relative wealth is the same. Tomorrow, a person becomes rich, at the same time someone becomes poorer. That's how it is. There isn't enough wealth in the world for everybody to be happy. That's the sad part, and the more money people have, the more prices go up. A foreigner of a developing nation might make 10 dollars a month, but for a single US cent he can by five apples or something. (Like, how I can get 500 dollars worth of Prozac in Mexico for 10 dollars.) The big problem is, prices usually don't fall when wages do. When unemployment hit hard in the US, prices actually went up. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, all the while Bush was on TV telling everybody to SPEND SPEND SPEND. Idiots actually believe the twisted economics the rich people throw at them. "If you stop spending money, then the store clerk loses his job, then the barber loses his becuase the clerk.... blah blah blah." Didn't matter, people were laid off so fast, on your way to the store you got the pink slip on your beeper. What the rich people were saying was "Quick, give me all your money to help ensure we are still rich when this stuff blows over."
I don't care for your so-called facts. Your claims are not true. You can claim you are from India all you want in your defense; it won't make a bit of difference. Any native English speaker (Which, those in India are NOT native speakers) will tell you that Indians don't know their ass from a hole in a wall when it comes to English. Written or spoken. Just call any support desk, or email any support desk that's in India.
I have a lot of friends in the US that are naturalized citizens, and many who are trying to attain citizenship. Some, speak English so well, only some words give hint of a bizarre accent which will cause someone to ask where they are from.
STILL! If you used idioms, slang or use of the language as a casual means of communications or to express your thoughts; similar to language use in poetry, then they have NO CLUE. Conotation, idiomatic speech, slang, lingual expression all does not come explained in a book. You lose up to 99% of the idea in some cases, and the most conservative but casual cases you lose between 30 to 60% of the meaning if you are not aware of all the idioms and such. There's lose in communications when someone from London and Los Angeles speaks with one another. English is a native tongue to both, but since the two grew up in different cultures and different countries there are slight differences in the use of some words that project an entirely different feel and meaning to the other.
This isn't even touching on accents yet. Word usage, particular phrases and analogous speach that's used in defined areas.
So NO. A Native Indian can not speak English, nor can they write it worth a damn either.
Companies outsource their programmers and engineers to India claiming they are good enough or even better. I call BS, becuase they say the same thing about phone support. If their programmer's abilities are remotely similar to those Indian's ability to speak English, it's the greatest wonder in the world that the code they write even compiles./* I've seen the results of outsourced software development. It reeks. They are idiots, but to be fair, I haven't seen "all" the code, but I can only go by what I've seen sofar. */
Marketing 301: Often, inexpensive items are perceived as "cheap" by the consumer. Therefore, many will not purchase the item; that's why "99 cent" stores struggle. If you find an optimal price range that will allow the consumer to feel he has actually purchased a quality item, that's the best price. The iPod mini going for only 100 dollars, may seel far less than it's current price. So many people wouldn't take it seriously not to mention how many short cuts that would have to be taken to actually seel the product that low.
Yesterday, Charles M. Schulz was utterly amazed when he came across Mike Anderer's reply regarding the Baystar SCO transaction on NewsForge.
Charles M. Schulz, who had used the famous 'wha wha wha' to identify adults speaking in his cartoons, was amazed to find the equivalent could actually be accomplished with real words.
Sorry to play devils advocate here, but regulation is needed. My argument lay on a fundamental concept of communications. There is a reason, no matter what phone you purchase, you are able to call any other phone in the world. There's also a reason for federal regulation on phone companies enforcing that their service may at the least have enough bandwidth to carry voice across the lines. Basically, avoiding legal speak, in the event of an emergency, a civilian must be able to contact authorities or medical assistance, via 911 for example, provided they have a phone. Be it a satellite phone, cell phone, AT&T built land-line phone, GSM phone etc.
I argue that any application that can even be used as a form of communications, to imply a listener, be public and open. Such as document formats, which have the intent to be displayed on other computers is a form of communication. Network protocols, all of them need to be open and standard. Web services are especially communications and conformance to standards should be regulated and enforced. Hypothetically, when your local police station may start accepting emergency pleas via their web-page, is it right that their web-page is only supported with Microsoft Internet Explorer?
If the government is to regulate any part of the IT industry, I feel it's crucial they regulate the communications concepts therein. Such regulation shall be restricted to only apply to compatibility and the assurance that all computing devices are able to accurately parse and rely the ideas and intent of said communications.
I don't want the government regulating much of anything else I do want the government to demand that any form for communications, file formats, protocols, specs shall be open and free for all to inspect and implement on any computing device. Further, all forms of communication must be designed for the ability to be implemented on all computing devices and their logical environments. (This will take care of Microsoft saying "OK, We'll do that, but we'll wrap our implementation so deep into our OS that you can't implement it unless you are using Microsoft products.)
Just my feeling on it. Lots seem to fear government regulation. The government isn't that bad, and those that do not trust the government turns a blind eye towards the corruption, abuse and illegal behavious of international corporations. Corporations sole intent is to profit, at any expence, the government is supposed to protect the people. If it weren't for government leglislation we'd all be working 24x7 and with no benefits for 25 cents a day in the most dangerous conditions imaginable.
Feb. 22, 1989, the music industry stunned nearly the entire world when they handed Jethro Tull the grammy for best Heavy Metal over Metallica.
Clearly, MTV and the rest of those yahoo's had no clue what the general population listened too. Its easily argueable they still don't, when was the last time you watched MTV? Better, when was the last time you saw a video?
"Noone runs Linux, Microsoft owns 99% of the desktop market!"
Companies scared of SCO's ramblings, figure that there's no harm in a little prospective legal protection... afterall, who's going to complain? "Everyone runs Microsoft Windows."
Are those suitable for board room politics so out of touch of the consumers' wishes that they honestly have no idea how many desktops are running Linux? Are they so gullible to figure that such an act can go unnoticed? That, as far as public backlash goes, there's no consequences due to the lack of users?
To corporate America, Microsoft and SCO. My GRANDMOTHER is aware of Linux, and not becuase I told her. She asked ME about it! Games are being developed natively for Linux, the pengiun icon is showing up on merchandise ranging from network cards to video cards, from CD-RW drives to packs of diskettes.
Now, some corporations, where their executives have yet to venture to a local computer store, corner store or at the least mingle with the general public, are now realizing that reality is far from what their so-called-educated marketing team tells them in facy presentations and graphs.
EV1, felt the heat, heat great enough for them to post publicly an explanation (excuse rather) for their actions supporting SCO's claim.
No doubt, Computer Associates did infact pay SCO, only to later regret it and "vehemently" try to catch up with public sentiment.
Corporations try so hard to control the market, they don't even realize when they no longer have control. By the time they catch up, it's too late. (I still don't respect Music Award ceremonies becuase of the foul foolishness of 1989).
What we need is migration software. Something that runs on a Windows server, archives the data and translates settings and provide sample (drop in go) config files for the Linux/UNIX counter parts.
I write similar software. Only, migration from one Linux service to another like SQL servers or LDAP servers. But I will never develop such on Windows as that would require me to install Windows on some poor computer. But, I'm sure many others have a Windows box with Visual Studio on it so this is what we need to tackle.
Besides, I wonder if Microsoft would start getting worried if all this GPL code started popping up in Win32 land on account of transition programs for each Win32 program.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want more people to use Linux, the best tool by far will be to make it usable by the general public, as easy and understandable as Windows is.
I will not be modded up for this, becuase it's truth. Truth, people actively ignore.
It burns me up every time someone claims that what is written on the chains holding Linux down has anything to do with ease of use.
Have we forgotten computing history? Are we that afriad of what needs to be done, we blatantly walk straight into a wall head first with ignorance?
Ease of use, has never to this day played a role in the popularity and market dominance of a computer operating system. Or, VCR, automobile, cell phone or any other interactive device.
Maybe, the problem is, most people here used to be Macintosh haters just three or so years ago. Oh, you heard about how easy the Mac was, so easy infact trolls still try to make a wise crack about the one-button mouse. It's always been a wonder to the Mac community, how Microsoft managed to surpass Apple hiding behind the command prompt. While we all have our business and economics degrees that give us a lame authority to try to define Apples blunders, the fact remains many geeks criticized Mac users because THERE WASN'T A COMMAND LINE!
Now, we point at the crippled Windows command line interface, and cry about Linux's ease of use!
Linux's ease of use is irrelevant. I don't care how many people scream otherwise. Linux has so many other qualities that if we focus on them, we will prevail. Who here started using Linux becuase it was "easy to use"? Noone. Who here started using Linux becuase of the liberty entailed in Open Source, the efficiency of Open Source, the control? I wonder if there is a high percentage of Linux users driving cars with manual transmissions... I do! I don't find it a coincedence either! When I was concerned with ease of use, I used a Macintosh. To this day, when ease of use is heavily on my mind, I recommend a Macintosh.
Microsoft displayed that market control can be easily acheived without ease of use. Or senseable use for that matter, they still haven't mastered cut and paste. But, we don't like how they did it. So we think we are better than they are, and we should come out on top if we don't stoop to their level. That's just plain fantasy, it never pans out in the end. There's a reality here, the man willing to kick the other in the balls will always be left standing. If you want to defeat such a person, you had better drop some morals otherwise you'll be hunched over in agony.
We can do this without zealotry, blind advocacy... but we can't do it if we constantly try to find a cause to the problem, we feel most comfortable with. Linux doesn't lack 95% of the market becuase it is hard to use. Linux lacks 95% of the market becuase it's users are hunched over on the side-walk thinking they are in pain becuase their shoes weren't tied right.
Many years ago, I worked at a fast food joint. Pretty common first job for Americans my age I guess, but I remember spending a 18 hour day becuase supplies didn't show up till 2am in the morning.
At the time, I was happy thinking about the overtime check, but the manager came up with some kind of lame excuse why it's technically not overtime. Saying something like I wasn't working for many of the hours (you know, forced attendance waiting for the truck to show up.) and that the company policy allowed to shave off 'X' number of overtime hours.
Basically, in the end, I never saw the 8 hours of overtime I was supposed to have. Of course, if you challange the overtime scam, you are faced with likely termination. If you are working at a fast food joint, you probably can't afford that.
I'll put accurate, current physical contact information in my whois data when I finally get a P.O. Box or some such obscure, vague association to my whereabouts.
I think the only people really complaining about this sort of thing are lawyers and companies looking to screw over the individual.
RIAA: "He has a domain name!? Quick, I know a 31337 trick! 'WHO IZ' his domain name to get l337 infoz! Then we can get him!"
Later.
RIAA: "What the hell is this? A run down shack in the middle of the desert? Obviously, the terrorist mp3 file sharer has tricked us and our super-hacker 'WHO IZ' trick! What else can we do?"
RIAA Lawyer: "Let's see into making it more difficult to use contact data for domain registration. That way, you can easily find all your terrorists with your elite 'WHO IZ' uber-hacker skillz!"
Microsoft is 'working with microprocessor companies, including Intel and AMD, to help Windows...support hardware-enforced data execute protection (also known as NX, or no execute)'.
Isn't this kinda like finger pointing? Microsoft doesn't want to fix problems on their side so they ask that the chip manufacturers shield the problem.
I can hear the hardware and software engineers blaming each other right now.
freedom or safety? Why are we so willing to comprimise our rights? Where does it stop?
When the society lacks the balls to protect it's freedoms, it must sacrifice them.
We can stop terrorism, but I bet you can't stomach how it's done.
Interesting. I didn't know fingerprinting could prevent people from flying planes into buildings.
How, pray tell, would fingerprints distinguish a legal visitor who wants to go to disneyland, and a legal visitor who wants to hijack a plane and fly it into a building?
If the hijacker has no previous criminal record, as with 9/11 IIRC, why would this possibly be of use?
I hate to say this, and this isn't my deepest sentiment, but logically....
The ONLY reason, snot nosed foriegners are able to step foot in America is becuase the half-wit leaders never asked American citizens if foriegners should be allowed in!
Maybe if they asked, I would for once vote!
Countries where I would accept visitors from had better condition their citizens with a degree of f*cking respect too! If I say wipe your feet on the way in, that's what you best do before entering my house. Stop b*tching! I have a Japanese friend that demands I take my shoes completely off, so it's not that bad!
I consider myself a UNIX geek. I also have a Power Mac running Apples latest and greatest. Ease of use had nothing to do with my decision to purchase this Mac. I really do not accept any claim that ease of use is why one chooses a platform over another, quite simply becuase if that were the truth Apple would likely have remained King of the Hill from the beginning. But, Microsoft, with DOS in short order overcame "ease of use".
Why I chose the Power Mac.
It's UNIX. The cheapest UNIX desktop you can purchase. (I'm not referring to home grown Linux boxes here.) Look at a AIX workstation from IBM, price Sun's latest desktop offerings. Then, look at Apple's. But, most importantly MacOS X has much more corporate support so that means it has games, applications that Linux doesn't have. It's sweet to have Gimp running beside PhotoShop, or Mozilla running beside Internet Explorer, Star Office running next to Microsoft's Office for Macintosh. Should I mention, all of these being NATIVE as well? To me, that's a big plus.
I argue, that overnight, Apple went from having the least amount of software available to it's Mac platform, to having more software than any other platform in existance. Not only can you run 99% of all the Open Source software, you can run many of the commercial applications too. I find that awesome.
They also seemed to have defied the natural order of compensation. They have managed to make UNIX very easy to use for the average user, while maintaining an in-depth use for geeks of all levels. To me, that's like a world class bodybuilder who is also a world class chess champion and Noble nominee. Not saying that's impossible, just saying it's odd and odd for reasons stemming from experience. Like the drop-dead gorgeous babe with the hottest body, also being a semester away from a Ph.D in astro-physics or some such field.
I'm a UNIX geek. I'm also a IT professional. I have no ground to complain about ease of use, by doing so I imply my weakness and lack of skill and or knowledge!
If they'll send a teenager to court for offering a gig or two of mp3s, surely they'll happily beat the life out of a mugger that steals 10-20-40GB of mp3s!
http://amidasimputer.com/gallery/
Absolutely beautiful! Unbelievably flat front side,
with unreal curves along the back and sides. Very
very attractive.
I'm moving to India! Then I'll be all for outsourcing with my new, erm, Amida... using hottie...
I'm sure this idea has been relayed already, but
I'm going to mention it again. Emphasis in this
matter certainly deserves no bounds.
9/11, Chernobyl (if there could be a comparison)
are prime examples that at a moments notice, your
Life can be flipped upside down.
I also live in San Diego. I wonder how many other
San Diegans realize one of the largest fusion reactors in the world sits right in their back yard? http://www.gat.com
Microsoft has it's purpose. I think we are mostly concerned with their practices, but generally I think Microsoft makes an OK product for non professionals.
We (or I) want diversity. I want documents, regardless of their format to not pose a problem regardless of platform. People will ALWAYS purchase commercial software, if anything, to pay for the convience of NOT having to build it on their own. Or, as odd as it may seem, some will pay to generate a feeling of value in their merchandise; this can be seen in the clothing industry from all angles, otherwise known publicly as 'buying the name' such as Nike versus shoes from the 99cent rack.
I think, a world without Microsoft (assuming a Microsoft that is NOT unruly), is a world contrary to what we really want or imply we want.
The day all of my computers, can be 100% compatible with Windows (documents, file sharing, database access etc.) is the day I'll purchase and use a version of Windows. Till then, Windows will continue to be the odd ball on my network, relatively handicapped and limited.
Linux (and more importantly, the applications that the big dogs like IBM and Novell are now pushing on it) will never mature to a usable level until it gets corporate desktop exposure.
I totally disagree. Corporations are the last place for ideas. I do not understand this general support for corporations across the globe. They are inherently evil due to the fact that humans are in charge and worse, given the lawful rights to over-endulge in greed and oppression. [Which oppression is always the result of greed.]
Linux is extremely useful as it is. If you disagree, it's becuase you don't know it well enough. Intuition only goes so far, and I heard the same argument against MacOS, and MacOS is high up on the pole for ease of use and intuitive design. Bottom line, if you don't find it useable, you don't know the system very well becuase all the functionality is there just as it's in Windows or any other platform.
Not to sound elitist, but I don't care for Linux to be way too easy. People need to know fundamentals about computers, and frankly, I don't care if all they want to do is to check email once a day.
Having a corporation submit ideas, and those ideas be taken seriously is a sure sign of failure in the philosophy and general design of the Linux operating system. Windows, for example, is a demonstration of how ignorant corporate ideas are. And Linux will fall victim to the idiotic requests of corporations just as all senseless functionality in Windows, such as having an excel spread sheet within an email.
Corporate interests do not mix well with engineer's interests, look at the tragedies of NASA for a prime example. To an Open Source developer today, a problem must be fixed if one is found. A corporate analysis of the same problem might be similar to "Oh, the user isn't supposed to type that in. There's no problem, here ignore that bug and add this 'functionality'". This happens to this day, ontop of time limits putting strain on developers to hurry up and pop something out that "works" i.e. medocrity, versus allowing him all the time he needs to thouroughly think about the best way to acheive a solution.
Lastly, I'm positive that there are far more home desktops than their are corporate desktops.
I didn't purchase a Dell pre-installed Linux system becuase, only business could purchase them. And, those consumer targetted Linux pre-installed systems are crap. Machines with crappy processors, crappy video cards, crappy RAM and harddrives, and at a similar cost as if Windows was preinstalled. Forgive me if I'm incorrect, but wasn't that the main question for VA Linux hardware? Specifically their laptops; which seemed more expensive than the Windows pre-installed competition?
They need to seriously allow choice across the board, on all hardware sold to business and consumers. That's my feeling on it, and all the hardware should reflect a considerable price decrease if Linux is chosen.
I have my array of hummingbirds, but Master of Puppets [Metallica] just doesn't sound the same.
I'm using SETI just like many others are. I have it running on several machines and I average about 10 work units a day.
How, exactly are we supposed to identify intelligent construction or manipulation? That's basically what we are trying to identify right? A pattern, that doesn't fit a natural chaotic pattern, thus must have been controlled or manipulated for a particular purpose signifying intelligent intent. Am I wrong?
Now, here's the dilemma, if I recall correctly life on earth is heavily carbon based. Organic chemistry contributes this to carbons valency of 4 right? It's been years since I took chemistry, so I might be rusty. But other elements, possibly with a valency of 4, could very well be a basis for life, I think silicon is one of them.
Well, we can try to speculate the intelligence of some life form based off of a different element all we want, but let's veer from the psuedo science and go with something a little more documented or practical.
I find it difficult to believe, that we are the only star with a planet in the right position to sustain life AS WE KNOW IT. There are billions of stars in our galaxy, there are billions of galaxies in our spacial quadrant and there are... point is, there is A LOT of stuff out there, and we really have no clue how much.
How is it possible to identify patterns unknown? We speculate, or assume that intelligent life will use radio waves or some such. I argue this to be impossible and that we are looking for the wrong things. Radio waves may be a viable thing to look for, if looking for a civilization at approximately our level. But, since the dawn of man, there have been documented accounts of aliens or the like for thousands of years, yesterday, today, and there will eventually be more tomorrow. If an Alien space craft had travelled to earth, the closest star is Alpha Centauri right? That's something like 13 light years away? So advanced to travel that distance, reasonably, yet have communications so primative to have an approximate 13 year lag? No, I think such beings would be using a form of communications that is a little faster. So by looking for radio emissions, the most we are hoping for is to locate a civilization that was as advanced as ours is TODAY, ATLEAST 13 years ago (Assuming we find something interesting coming from Alpha Centauri right?). Then comes the question, if we find distinguishable patterns come from an object that's a 100 million light years away... boy that will make us feel undeveloped, stupid and rather pathetic wouldn't it? I mean, they are a ~100 million years ahead of us right? Who wants to be mentioned at the end of the race as the one who came in dead last? Announcing something like that, is like announcing, "NASA has just verified, that the human species is a 100 million years behind 'X' species located on ''."
What about the possibility, that life on other planets surpassed us a thousand years ago. But since they are several thousand light years away, we'll have no clue until they are banging on our front door. "Hi, how are ya? We noticed you are trying to look for us, we thought we'd speed things along..."
Also, and the most practical, I argue that if I took a circuit board and buried it in the dirt. Two thousand years from now, it will not be recognizable as a mark of intelligence. The patterns would just seem too coincedental, and if not look at in the right percpective it will totally be missed. Much like, in modern times the Nazca Lines in Peru. If you aren't at the right angle (very high up), you will not identify a pattern signifying intelligent intent.
SETI is fun, but I highly doubt we'll have any conclusive evidence derive from it. But, out of principle it needs funding. I think, SETI has already found evidence, we just don't know how to interpret it to identify it's presence in the data.
He states a computer expert in North Korea can download Linux and create a super-computer. Yet I'm sure the same expert can download some ISOs of Windows from somewhere
Let's be honest for a moment. Darl might have a point. If we consider the quality of Microsoft software, it would be very disturbing to find that a Tactical Nuclear weapons was developed, managed and secured by Windows. Using Linux for the research, development and security would imply a level of competence which might lead to success.
We can't have that!
[I]On the other hand I know of hundreds of Americans who can?t even spell well, and this is their mother tongue.[/I]
Casual, spoken language of any language is often totally different than what the established grammatical rules suggest. It's the key to an evolving language. If I learned a foriegn language, I'd speak it better than the native speakers in respect to structure and grammer. Still, I will not be able to communicate 100% either way. And for example, you're English grammer is rather nice, but you are still a foriegner by style; becuase I've never heard a native English speaker use "mother" to describe a first language. So, just by using a single word incorrectly (though grammatically fine), you stand out pal.
[I]Technology is no different. You find the best, the brightest out here too. As Americans you really need to ponder over the fact that it has been over 200 years since it was proved that the Universe isn't America/Earth centric.[/I]
No doubt, there are bright people in India. So bright, they have forgotten to start their own software business to later become the next Microsoft. Well, that's an unfair stab, but what is typical is a foriegner bagging on Americans whenever the American is trying to protect his interest. I know that America isn't the center of the universe, I also disagree with our involvement with the rest of the world. Which would include our out of control outsourcing. I want America to remove the barn doors from our ports, I also want America to stop sending our troops everywhere. We baked our apple pie, and you're pissed when we start asking you what you did to help make it. Dependance on others is a sign of weakness, if you guys are that good in software, then compete. Start your own business.
[I]Break that shell, go places, live cheaper. The sun doesn?t rotate around America anymore, or India . . . or even China.[/I]
I just might, but you best not muster the audacity to suggest it. I'm a patriot, I love my country right or wrong. I also love my people, those I grew up with, those I look up to. I do NOT want to see them have a hard time raising their children, I do not want to see them struggle through a depression. You think Americans are unaware of the worldly horrors that plague this planet from one country to the next. You are dead wrong, we do know and that's why we are so adamant in trying to not end up in the same position.
[I]AND FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME NOW: THE WORLD, ITS RESOURCES, AND ITS PEOPLE ARE THE SAME EVERYWHERE.[/I]
No, the worlds resources and the people are NOT the same. The worlds wealth is fixed, the resources are finite and the people have human characteristics that make each one unique.
While there may be more currency today, than what might have been in circulation in the 1600's, still the amount of relative wealth is the same. Tomorrow, a person becomes rich, at the same time someone becomes poorer. That's how it is. There isn't enough wealth in the world for everybody to be happy. That's the sad part, and the more money people have, the more prices go up. A foreigner of a developing nation might make 10 dollars a month, but for a single US cent he can by five apples or something. (Like, how I can get 500 dollars worth of Prozac in Mexico for 10 dollars.) The big problem is, prices usually don't fall when wages do. When unemployment hit hard in the US, prices actually went up. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, all the while Bush was on TV telling everybody to SPEND SPEND SPEND. Idiots actually believe the twisted economics the rich people throw at them. "If you stop spending money, then the store clerk loses his job, then the barber loses his becuase the clerk.... blah blah blah." Didn't matter, people were laid off so fast, on your way to the store you got the pink slip on your beeper. What the rich people were saying was "Quick, give me all your money to help ensure we are still rich when this stuff blows over."
So, no the resources aren't the sa
I don't care for your so-called facts. Your claims are not true. You can claim you are from India all you want in your defense; it won't make a bit of difference. Any native English speaker (Which, those in India are NOT native speakers) will tell you that Indians don't know their ass from a hole in a wall when it comes to English. Written or spoken. Just call any support desk, or email any support desk that's in India.
I have a lot of friends in the US that are naturalized citizens, and many who are trying to attain citizenship. Some, speak English so well, only some words give hint of a bizarre accent which will cause someone to ask where they are from.
STILL! If you used idioms, slang or use of the language as a casual means of communications or to express your thoughts; similar to language use in poetry, then they have NO CLUE. Conotation, idiomatic speech, slang, lingual expression all does not come explained in a book. You lose up to 99% of the idea in some cases, and the most conservative but casual cases you lose between 30 to 60% of the meaning if you are not aware of all the idioms and such. There's lose in communications when someone from London and Los Angeles speaks with one another. English is a native tongue to both, but since the two grew up in different cultures and different countries there are slight differences in the use of some words that project an entirely different feel and meaning to the other.
This isn't even touching on accents yet. Word usage, particular phrases and analogous speach that's used in defined areas.
So NO. A Native Indian can not speak English, nor can they write it worth a damn either.
Companies outsource their programmers and engineers to India claiming they are good enough or even better. I call BS, becuase they say the same thing about phone support. If their programmer's abilities are remotely similar to those Indian's ability to speak English, it's the greatest wonder in the world that the code they write even compiles.
Marketing 301: Often, inexpensive items are perceived as "cheap" by the consumer. Therefore, many will not purchase the item; that's why "99 cent" stores struggle. If you find an optimal price range that will allow the consumer to feel he has actually purchased a quality item, that's the best price. The iPod mini going for only 100 dollars, may seel far less than it's current price. So many people wouldn't take it seriously not to mention how many short cuts that would have to be taken to actually seel the product that low.
Well, today Unreal Tournament 2004 was released on store shelves.
Unlike Unreal Tournament 2003, Linux is clearly identified in the System Requirements!!
I also buy WineX, and CodeWeavers cross-over plugin.
Yesterday, Charles M. Schulz was utterly amazed when he came across Mike Anderer's reply regarding the Baystar SCO transaction on NewsForge.
Charles M. Schulz, who had used the famous 'wha wha wha' to identify adults speaking in his cartoons, was amazed to find the equivalent could actually be accomplished with real words.
Sorry to play devils advocate here, but regulation is needed. My argument lay on a fundamental concept of communications. There is a reason, no matter what phone you purchase, you are able to call any other phone in the world. There's also a reason for federal regulation on phone companies enforcing that their service may at the least have enough bandwidth to carry voice across the lines. Basically, avoiding legal speak, in the event of an emergency, a civilian must be able to contact authorities or medical assistance, via 911 for example, provided they have a phone. Be it a satellite phone, cell phone, AT&T built land-line phone, GSM phone etc.
I argue that any application that can even be used as a form of communications, to imply a listener, be public and open. Such as document formats, which have the intent to be displayed on other computers is a form of communication. Network protocols, all of them need to be open and standard. Web services are especially communications and conformance to standards should be regulated and enforced. Hypothetically, when your local police station may start accepting emergency pleas via their web-page, is it right that their web-page is only supported with Microsoft Internet Explorer?
If the government is to regulate any part of the IT industry, I feel it's crucial they regulate the communications concepts therein. Such regulation shall be restricted to only apply to compatibility and the assurance that all computing devices are able to accurately parse and rely the ideas and intent of said communications.
I don't want the government regulating much of anything else I do want the government to demand that any form for communications, file formats, protocols, specs shall be open and free for all to inspect and implement on any computing device. Further, all forms of communication must be designed for the ability to be implemented on all computing devices and their logical environments. (This will take care of Microsoft saying "OK, We'll do that, but we'll wrap our implementation so deep into our OS that you can't implement it unless you are using Microsoft products.)
Just my feeling on it. Lots seem to fear government regulation. The government isn't that bad, and those that do not trust the government turns a blind eye towards the corruption, abuse and illegal behavious of international corporations. Corporations sole intent is to profit, at any expence, the government is supposed to protect the people. If it weren't for government leglislation we'd all be working 24x7 and with no benefits for 25 cents a day in the most dangerous conditions imaginable.
Feb. 22, 1989, the music industry stunned nearly the entire world when they handed Jethro Tull the grammy for best Heavy Metal over Metallica.
Clearly, MTV and the rest of those yahoo's had no clue what the general population listened too. Its easily argueable they still don't, when was the last time you watched MTV? Better, when was the last time you saw a video?
"Noone runs Linux, Microsoft owns 99% of the desktop market!"
Companies scared of SCO's ramblings, figure that there's no harm in a little prospective legal protection... afterall, who's going to complain? "Everyone runs Microsoft Windows."
Are those suitable for board room politics so out
of touch of the consumers' wishes that they honestly have no idea how many desktops are running Linux? Are they so gullible to figure that such an act can go unnoticed? That, as far as public backlash goes, there's no consequences due to the lack of users?
To corporate America, Microsoft and SCO. My GRANDMOTHER is aware of Linux, and not becuase I told her. She asked ME about it! Games are being developed natively for Linux, the pengiun icon is showing up on merchandise ranging from network cards to video cards, from CD-RW drives to packs of diskettes.
Now, some corporations, where their executives have yet to venture to a local computer store, corner store or at the least mingle with the general public, are now realizing that reality is far from what their so-called-educated marketing team tells them in facy presentations and graphs.
EV1, felt the heat, heat great enough for them to post publicly an explanation (excuse rather) for their actions supporting SCO's claim.
No doubt, Computer Associates did infact pay SCO, only to later regret it and "vehemently" try to catch up with public sentiment.
Corporations try so hard to control the market, they don't even realize when they no longer have control. By the time they catch up, it's too late. (I still don't respect Music Award ceremonies becuase of the foul foolishness of 1989).
Regulations like this are, of course, expected to come under fierce criticism from the WTO.
Let's see about an analogy:
If my neighbor can not control his dog, then I may end up having to shoot his animal next time his dog is in my yard fighting my dog.
If the WTO can't handle unruly international monopolies, then...
What we need is migration software. Something that runs on a Windows server, archives the data and translates settings and provide sample (drop in go) config files for the Linux/UNIX counter parts.
I write similar software. Only, migration from one Linux service to another like SQL servers or LDAP servers. But I will never develop such on Windows as that would require me to install Windows on some poor computer. But, I'm sure many others have a Windows box with Visual Studio on it so this is what we need to tackle.
Besides, I wonder if Microsoft would start getting worried if all this GPL code started popping up in Win32 land on account of transition programs for each Win32 program.