Sorry, I know this is way off topic... but I've gotta get this off my chest.
Why do so many people hype the idea of Linux on the desktop? Linux has survived (and grown for nearly 12 years) simply by appealing to a niche market of computer enthusiats who didn't want to play ball w/ the big guys.
In those (nearly) 12 years, non-enthusiasts have seen that they could put this particular product to use as a development/admin/server tool. Meanwhile, the enthusiasts have continued to tinker, modify and play w/ their "toy" (I do not use the term "toy" in a derogative sense!) to the point that it has become an alternative to computing standards (i.e. Windows/Mac OS).
But, that does not mean that the burden of responsibility to change YOUR feelings of computer use falls into the hands of the Linux development community.
If you don't like the way Windows works -- contact Microsoft. If you think that the Mac OS is too/not enough something or another -- contact Apple. Vote w/ your credit cards. Don't demand that Linux eradicate your unhappiness with whatever system you've chosen to use in the past. It 'aint gonna happen.
Look, in the long term, 12 years is an awfully small amount of time for a hobby project to become what it is today: A very robust operating system w/ practical applications for software development, systems administration and networking solutions. It also happens to make a damn fine desktop for someone willing to put the time and energy into it. But it's completely unfair to expect the hard working development community (who rarely sees any compensation -- other than kudos from their colleagues) to create a perfect desktop environment for every technophobe on the planet.
If you want the perfect Linux Desktop solution -- Take the time to learn to do it; that's the beauty of Linux. If you don't have the inclination to do that, then hire a (team of) Linux developers to design one for you. Otherwise, sit back and enjoy the show.
Computers should be useful. Using computers should be fun. Linux is useful and fun. Where's the problem?
Agreed... MS has done everything in it's (mighty) power to avoid, cancel out and obfuscate JAVA development -- w/in the Windows universe.
However, MS also has a track record of alienating alternate operating systems (w/ the obvious exception of it's pocket mouse, Apple -- and even there it's apparent, to a greater degree). I've read a bit of the hype concerning.NET's cross platform goals -- however, I'm not a complete believer, yet. Sun, at least, appears to be trying to deliver the goods -- whether or not MS beats them to the punch is what interests me.
I'm not trying to troll here, but I haven't noticed anyone mentioning Sun ONE.
I choose to believe that if ONE finds mass success, it would only be a matter of time before MS turns.NET into an open platform solution -- i.e. Office (or equivalent) on Unix (pick a flavor).
However, if they wait as long as they did to enter the browser wars, it might well be to late. Here, me out...
Explorer reached the level of "defacto" standard due to the large percentage of Windows based systems requiring a browser. By incorporating a browser into the native OS environment, they usurped Netscape's potential for market control. [ The Mac market was, and is, an afterthought. -- but one they ultimately dominated, as well.] However, MS has never chosen to pursue the BSD/Linux market by providing a browser (Point of fact, have bullheadedly refused to entertain the idea -- thus, I (happily) use Mozilla or Links).
The browser wars didn't end there, however. By providing the standard in web browsers, it was a simple move to control the email/news client market as well... thus, reinforcing their control of the end-user OS market. (Ever see a die-hard Windows-only user cringe, balk, and insult anyone who utilizes a non-MS product? Sure, we all have.) Now, by adding the Office Suite -- they succesfully sealed the deal -- on x86 boxes that run Windows (as well as the aformentioned Mac market).
This does, however, leave a large range of users "out in the cold" (as I'm sure MS chooses to view the situation). Almost a marketing form of punishment -- don't use our OS, or an OS that we choose to "support" and you get no cookies. It does not, however, change the fact that there are still plenty of non-Windows users (and interested by standers installing Linux everyday) who have needs that must be (and is being) filled by other developers.
If someone provides a clear, stable and robust alternative that makes a dynamic mark on the Unix/Linux community FIRST, I find it difficult to believe that the community would then turn their (collective) backs on said developer... in as long as their needs continued to be met.
In short -- if MS continues to choose not to embrace non-Windows using clients; I, personally, believe it will be a development/marketing era that could potentially swing their doors shut. Fortunately, their are developers/companies out there, who are already assessing multi-platform client needs.
In closing, I haven't loaded Explorer up once since I closed my web development business -- I prefer to work in the environment that makes me all warm and gushy inside; and there's no Explorer there. I do continue to use Office under OS X (possibly the only thing that X gets used for... other than playing the odd game... or some Darwin poking). And as my other systems (Powerbook G3 included) all run one *nix or another... I'll support whichever developer decides not to treat me like an errant child.
Slightly off topic, but if this happened in New York, do you think it would finally provide a "Stern Free" cab ride?
*Enters cab*
Wonk... So, Candi... do you like small penises?... Heh heh... belch... Heh heh... Call in Gass, we need some Walken & Gene Simmons impersonations! Wow, look at those hooters... Heh heh*
*jumps out of cab w/ an extreme sense of nausea*
(All heh hehs provided by Robin McMann, er... Ed Quivers... er, you know what I mean.)
A person's loyalty to a company's hardware doesn't necesssarily indicate their loyalty to the same company's (or anyone elses, for that matter) software.
Just because there's a G4 sitting on someone's desk... or a Powerbook in their car, doesn't give any clearer indication of their personal preferences than this article truly does.
A prime example of this is Yellow Dog Linux. They aren't selling new Mac boxes loaded w/ YDL 2.3 becuase it's getting them laid. No, there are enough people who want them to make it a profitable endeavor.
So, to decide that Mac users either love or hate Microsoft due to (and only to) their choice of platforms is not only narrowminded, but dim witted.
BTW -- When I sit down at either my Powerbook or G4, I use pine for email, AbiWord for writing and either links or Mozilla for browising (depends on whether I want the perty picters).
---- The difficulty of a system is comparable only to the ignorance of the end-user.
Sorry, I already brought up Egan... (a couple of posts down).
And according to the ToM (Theory of Microsoft) two agreeably similar ideas MUST cancel each other out; thereby creating a mega selling underfunctioning mess.
Hence, for the sake of the computing world, one of us must withdraw our observations... quickly!
---- The difficulty of a system is only comparable to the ignorance of the end-user.
[admission of ignorance] I'm not a physicist, nor a physics student, nor have I ever played one on television. I do, however, have an interest in abstract theories -- as the act of interpretation can itself change the variables. Sorry, but that's just cool. [/admission of ignorance]
While Ms. Kalamara's take on unification is indeed radical -- she's not alone in postulating existence through observation. I bring this up not to lessen Ms.Kalamara's position -- but to draw attention to the theoretical support she has. Australian physicist, Greg Egan (as one example), has toyed w/ similar notions for over 15 years -- Both 'Permutation City' & 'Distress' (yes, I know... they're 'sci-fi' books) presented his views in a neatly bound narrative.
One can also see efforts made [on the part of some physicists] to examine possible connections between physics & higher consciousness. I'm particularly intrigued by the inclusion of the Dalai Lama in various round table discussions. (This was an interesting read...)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/2/8/13/1
There is, obviously, a difference in languages (read: scientific views vs. metaphysical) but it's reassuring to note that there are some who would not disallow possibilities for their own prejudice of [what some would term] superstition.
As for the notion of "physics as art" (and those who don't like the comparison); I'm reminded of two things: Hofstadter's 'Gödel, Escher, Bach. The Eternal Golden Braid (If you're not familiar w/ it, it's definately a wonderful read) -- and the works of Philip Glass. While there are many who do not appreciate Glass's compositions, I've spoken with a few mathematicians who found his compositions to embody a "sense of mathematical purity". I suppose it can work both ways.
All in all -- I'll definately be following Fotini's work. Fun, fun stuff.
----- The difficulty of a system is only comparable to the ignorance of the end-user.
I must admit, aside from storing necessary information on systems that I'm currently working on, or acting as a chord dictionary; the only real use my Visor has is to annoy and frustrate people.
Example: I head down to the bar w/ my Visor and find a good place to camp (preferably between the TV & the bartender). When the bartender aims his remote at the TV to change the channel, I lock onto the signal w/ my Remote app and save it. A few minutes later, I turn my Visor's IR port towards the television and set a script to continually change the station every 5 minutes or so.
Once the bartender is swearing loud enough... I offer to "take a look", fix the problem and drink free beer for awhile.
[If you see someone doing 24/7/365 max upload/downloads, then figure out a proper way of telling THOSE USERS that they are using too much bandwidth, and put in a reasonable cap for them - don't take it out on the rest of the users.]
Something just stinks of elementary school discipline w/ that one -- Who threw that spit ball? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone? Fine, no pudding for any of you! It's nap time!
Hmmm... that would seem to be corporate America's mentality, though.
C.A.: Go to sleep! American public: But I'm not tired! C.A.: We said, Go to sleep! A.P.: But, I wanna go outsi... C.A.: Go to SLEEP!
The notion of capping bandwidth has some interesting side effects -- a couple which have been mentioned. However, unless properly administered, the end user will (as usual) loose out. To recap a few:
Pop-up ads -- this is an unwanted addition to most (read: All) subscriber's internet experience. Start charging for bandwidth, and in the end -- you're paying for the priviledge of of viewing unwanted advertisements. [As mentioned previously -- Mozilla, Opera, and a few other browsers allow you to 'disallow' this nuisance. However, that's not going to help most mainstream, especially AOL, users. Me, hell -- I'm rather partial to links.] Granted, this may only be a small portion of the whole -- but it is, still, an unwanted portion.
The 'wording' of lure advertisements (commercials) -- If a company is going to place a limit on the amount of information an end user can receive (w/ in the guidelines of their service contract), then their commercials should (read: never will) be more honest about the capacity of the service. [In other words, quit tempting people w/ heavy bandwidth usage, if you don't really want them to use it.]
ISP's need to investigate their subscribers needs -- and accomodate them accordingly. [Common updates (application, OS, firmware drivers, etc...) should be housed on local mirrors. As should common/desired services -- game servers, chat servers, etc... If your user base requires/utilizes a service on a regular basis -- then make all provisions to house those services locally as to cut down on the bandwidth overhead.]
Finally, provide the customer w/ the overall product that they are paying for before you even consider upping the charges. [Example: I recently moved from Mousetown, Florida to a small western village in New York. I used to subscribe to a (for the most part) well balanced cable service for my connection -- and paid a reasonable fee ($49.95/month). -- This was good. Now, I'm DSL subscriber that pays $32.95 a month for a DSL connection -- PLUS $49.95 a month for my bandwidth (supposedly, 768/256). However, in actuality, my connection is really (on a very good day) 400/200. -- This is bad! (Of course, I was actually informed by the lead tech @ the phone company/ISP -- the problem is that I use "weird stuff" [Linux on a laptop, OS X & YDLinux on a G4], and if I'd use more "normal stuff" [Windows], it would "all work out okay". Wow, such keen technical insight -- I'm sure his role playing buddies must be proud.;)
In the end -- before an ISP can really start griping about the small portion of users who "abuse" the service they are subsribing to [read, already paying for]; mayhaps they should optimize the service they are providing as to make it more cost effective, usefull and productive. Until this happens, it's rather like buying a car & charging extra for the tires, windshield, gas tank and transmission.
Slashdot Mirror
>>I think there's one scenario in which Linux could become a viable desktop alternative.
Sorry, I know this is way off topic... but I've gotta get this off my chest.
Why do so many people hype the idea of Linux on the desktop? Linux has survived (and grown for nearly 12 years) simply by appealing to a niche market of computer enthusiats who didn't want to play ball w/ the big guys.
In those (nearly) 12 years, non-enthusiasts have seen that they could put this particular product to use as a development/admin/server tool. Meanwhile, the enthusiasts have continued to tinker, modify and play w/ their "toy" (I do not use the term "toy" in a derogative sense!) to the point that it has become an alternative to computing standards (i.e. Windows/Mac OS).
But, that does not mean that the burden of responsibility to change YOUR feelings of computer use falls into the hands of the Linux development community.
If you don't like the way Windows works -- contact Microsoft. If you think that the Mac OS is too/not enough something or another -- contact Apple. Vote w/ your credit cards. Don't demand that Linux eradicate your unhappiness with whatever system you've chosen to use in the past. It 'aint gonna happen.
Look, in the long term, 12 years is an awfully small amount of time for a hobby project to become what it is today: A very robust operating system w/ practical applications for software development, systems administration and networking solutions. It also happens to make a damn fine desktop for someone willing to put the time and energy into it. But it's completely unfair to expect the hard working development community (who rarely sees any compensation -- other than kudos from their colleagues) to create a perfect desktop environment for every technophobe on the planet.
If you want the perfect Linux Desktop solution -- Take the time to learn to do it; that's the beauty of Linux. If you don't have the inclination to do that, then hire a (team of) Linux developers to design one for you. Otherwise, sit back and enjoy the show.
Computers should be useful. Using computers should be fun. Linux is useful and fun. Where's the problem?
----
Agreed... MS has done everything in it's (mighty) power to avoid, cancel out and obfuscate JAVA development -- w/in the Windows universe.
.NET's cross platform goals -- however, I'm not a complete believer, yet. Sun, at least, appears to be trying to deliver the goods -- whether or not MS beats them to the punch is what interests me.
However, MS also has a track record of alienating alternate operating systems (w/ the obvious exception of it's pocket mouse, Apple -- and even there it's apparent, to a greater degree). I've read a bit of the hype concerning
----
Dude, I'm getting an Amiga!
I'm not trying to troll here, but I haven't noticed anyone mentioning Sun ONE.
.NET into an open platform solution -- i.e. Office (or equivalent) on Unix (pick a flavor).
I choose to believe that if ONE finds mass success, it would only be a matter of time before MS turns
However, if they wait as long as they did to enter the browser wars, it might well be to late. Here, me out...
Explorer reached the level of "defacto" standard due to the large percentage of Windows based systems requiring a browser. By incorporating a browser into the native OS environment, they usurped Netscape's potential for market control. [ The Mac market was, and is, an afterthought. -- but one they ultimately dominated, as well.] However, MS has never chosen to pursue the BSD/Linux market by providing a browser (Point of fact, have bullheadedly refused to entertain the idea -- thus, I (happily) use Mozilla or Links).
The browser wars didn't end there, however. By providing the standard in web browsers, it was a simple move to control the email/news client market as well... thus, reinforcing their control of the end-user OS market. (Ever see a die-hard Windows-only user cringe, balk, and insult anyone who utilizes a non-MS product? Sure, we all have.) Now, by adding the Office Suite -- they succesfully sealed the deal -- on x86 boxes that run Windows (as well as the aformentioned Mac market).
This does, however, leave a large range of users "out in the cold" (as I'm sure MS chooses to view the situation). Almost a marketing form of punishment -- don't use our OS, or an OS that we choose to "support" and you get no cookies. It does not, however, change the fact that there are still plenty of non-Windows users (and interested by standers installing Linux everyday) who have needs that must be (and is being) filled by other developers.
If someone provides a clear, stable and robust alternative that makes a dynamic mark on the Unix/Linux community FIRST, I find it difficult to believe that the community would then turn their (collective) backs on said developer... in as long as their needs continued to be met.
In short -- if MS continues to choose not to embrace non-Windows using clients; I, personally, believe it will be a development/marketing era that could potentially swing their doors shut. Fortunately, their are developers/companies out there, who are already assessing multi-platform client needs.
In closing, I haven't loaded Explorer up once since I closed my web development business -- I prefer to work in the environment that makes me all warm and gushy inside; and there's no Explorer there. I do continue to use Office under OS X (possibly the only thing that X gets used for... other than playing the odd game... or some Darwin poking). And as my other systems (Powerbook G3 included) all run one *nix or another... I'll support whichever developer decides not to treat me like an errant child.
Sorry to be so long winded.
-----
Slightly off topic, but if this happened in New York, do you think it would finally provide a "Stern Free" cab ride?
*Enters cab*
Wonk... So, Candi... do you like small penises?... Heh heh... belch... Heh heh... Call in Gass, we need some Walken & Gene Simmons impersonations! Wow, look at those hooters... Heh heh*
*jumps out of cab w/ an extreme sense of nausea*
(All heh hehs provided by Robin McMann, er... Ed Quivers... er, you know what I mean.)
----
A person's loyalty to a company's hardware doesn't necesssarily indicate their loyalty to the same company's (or anyone elses, for that matter) software.
Just because there's a G4 sitting on someone's desk... or a Powerbook in their car, doesn't give any clearer indication of their personal preferences than this article truly does.
A prime example of this is Yellow Dog Linux. They aren't selling new Mac boxes loaded w/ YDL 2.3 becuase it's getting them laid. No, there are enough people who want them to make it a profitable endeavor.
So, to decide that Mac users either love or hate Microsoft due to (and only to) their choice of platforms is not only narrowminded, but dim witted.
BTW -- When I sit down at either my Powerbook or G4, I use pine for email, AbiWord for writing and either links or Mozilla for browising (depends on whether I want the perty picters).
----
The difficulty of a system is comparable only to the ignorance of the end-user.
Sorry, I already brought up Egan... (a couple of posts down).
And according to the ToM (Theory of Microsoft) two agreeably similar ideas MUST cancel each other out; thereby creating a mega selling underfunctioning mess.
Hence, for the sake of the computing world, one of us must withdraw our observations... quickly!
----
The difficulty of a system is only comparable to the ignorance of the end-user.
[admission of ignorance]
I'm not a physicist, nor a physics student, nor have I ever played one on television. I do, however, have an interest in abstract theories -- as the act of interpretation can itself change the variables. Sorry, but that's just cool.
[/admission of ignorance]
While Ms. Kalamara's take on unification is indeed radical -- she's not alone in postulating existence through observation. I bring this up not to lessen Ms.Kalamara's position -- but to draw attention to the theoretical support she has. Australian physicist, Greg Egan (as one example), has toyed w/ similar notions for over 15 years -- Both 'Permutation City' & 'Distress' (yes, I know... they're 'sci-fi' books) presented his views in a neatly bound narrative.
One can also see efforts made [on the part of some physicists] to examine possible connections between physics & higher consciousness. I'm particularly intrigued by the inclusion of the Dalai Lama in various round table discussions. (This was an interesting read...)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/2/8/13/1
There is, obviously, a difference in languages (read: scientific views vs. metaphysical) but it's reassuring to note that there are some who would not disallow possibilities for their own prejudice of [what some would term] superstition.
As for the notion of "physics as art" (and those who don't like the comparison); I'm reminded of two things: Hofstadter's 'Gödel, Escher, Bach. The Eternal Golden Braid (If you're not familiar w/ it, it's definately a wonderful read) -- and the works of Philip Glass. While there are many who do not appreciate Glass's compositions, I've spoken with a few mathematicians who found his compositions to embody a "sense of mathematical purity". I suppose it can work both ways.
All in all -- I'll definately be following Fotini's work. Fun, fun stuff.
-----
The difficulty of a system is only comparable to the ignorance of the end-user.
The kind of crap that ends as soon as you put down yer X-box controller and contribute some code yerself!
Awww.... GodDamnit! I went and fed the troll! I hope it doesn't follow me home...
-----
The difficulty of a system is only comparable with the ignorance of the end-user.
I must admit, aside from storing necessary information on systems that I'm currently working on, or acting as a chord dictionary; the only real use my Visor has is to annoy and frustrate people.
Example: I head down to the bar w/ my Visor and find a good place to camp (preferably between the TV & the bartender). When the bartender aims his remote at the TV to change the channel, I lock onto the signal w/ my Remote app and save it. A few minutes later, I turn my Visor's IR port towards the television and set a script to continually change the station every 5 minutes or so.
Once the bartender is swearing loud enough... I offer to "take a look", fix the problem and drink free beer for awhile.
And yes, that's free as in beer AS IN free beer.
Wonder if this news will follow w/ severe Christmas time price drops?
Might be just the opportunity I was waiting for to build an x86 box (and finally retire my old G4).
----
The difficulty of a system is comparable only to the ignorance of the end-user.
Me: Hey! Check this out!
***click***
---Flush---
***click click click***
---Flush flush flush---
My Wife (in the shower): That's it! I'm divorcing you!
----
The difficulty of a system is only comparable to the ingnorance of the end-user.
What if Rio, Nomad, etc.. included some code in the firmware that refused to play any music distrubuted by Sony?
Think they'd get the hint?
----
The difficulty of a system is only comparable to the ignorance of the end-user.
...and, of course, name five of their Macintosh using friends, family or colleagues.
[If you see someone doing 24/7/365 max upload/downloads, then figure out a proper way of telling THOSE USERS that they are using too much bandwidth, and put in a reasonable cap for them - don't take it out on the rest of the users.]
Something just stinks of elementary school discipline w/ that one -- Who threw that spit ball? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone? Fine, no pudding for any of you! It's nap time!
Hmmm... that would seem to be corporate America's mentality, though.
C.A.: Go to sleep!
American public: But I'm not tired!
C.A.: We said, Go to sleep!
A.P.: But, I wanna go outsi...
C.A.: Go to SLEEP!
What? ^ Look up there! ^ He already said it!
The notion of capping bandwidth has some interesting side effects -- a couple which have been mentioned. However, unless properly administered, the end user will (as usual) loose out. To recap a few:
;)
Pop-up ads -- this is an unwanted addition to most (read: All) subscriber's internet experience. Start charging for bandwidth, and in the end -- you're paying for the priviledge of of viewing unwanted advertisements. [As mentioned previously -- Mozilla, Opera, and a few other browsers allow you to 'disallow' this nuisance. However, that's not going to help most mainstream, especially AOL, users. Me, hell -- I'm rather partial to links.] Granted, this may only be a small portion of the whole -- but it is, still, an unwanted portion.
The 'wording' of lure advertisements (commercials) -- If a company is going to place a limit on the amount of information an end user can receive (w/ in the guidelines of their service contract), then their commercials should (read: never will) be more honest about the capacity of the service. [In other words, quit tempting people w/ heavy bandwidth usage, if you don't really want them to use it.]
ISP's need to investigate their subscribers needs -- and accomodate them accordingly. [Common updates (application, OS, firmware drivers, etc...) should be housed on local mirrors. As should common/desired services -- game servers, chat servers, etc... If your user base requires/utilizes a service on a regular basis -- then make all provisions to house those services locally as to cut down on the bandwidth overhead.]
Finally, provide the customer w/ the overall product that they are paying for before you even consider upping the charges. [Example: I recently moved from Mousetown, Florida to a small western village in New York. I used to subscribe to a (for the most part) well balanced cable service for my connection -- and paid a reasonable fee ($49.95/month). -- This was good. Now, I'm DSL subscriber that pays $32.95 a month for a DSL connection -- PLUS $49.95 a month for my bandwidth (supposedly, 768/256). However, in actuality, my connection is really (on a very good day) 400/200. -- This is bad! (Of course, I was actually informed by the lead tech @ the phone company/ISP -- the problem is that I use "weird stuff" [Linux on a laptop, OS X & YDLinux on a G4], and if I'd use more "normal stuff" [Windows], it would "all work out okay". Wow, such keen technical insight -- I'm sure his role playing buddies must be proud.
In the end -- before an ISP can really start griping about the small portion of users who "abuse" the service they are subsribing to [read, already paying for]; mayhaps they should optimize the service they are providing as to make it more cost effective, usefull and productive. Until this happens, it's rather like buying a car & charging extra for the tires, windshield, gas tank and transmission.
[/long windedness]