Yes, this was exactly my problem. I loaded a simple BMP file into Gimp, wanted to black out a part of it, then save the file back. After 10 minutes of trying to find a way to "Save File" on what I had done, I gave up. In another 10 minutes time, I had already copied the file over to another machine (using SAMBA) running Windows, loaded Paintbrush, performed my edit, saved the file, and copied the file back to my Linux box and was done. There is no reason why something as *basic* as saving what you had done should be so hard to find.
Don't equate "expensive" with good either, as is very clear in your analogies. Vipers are very expensive and out of the reach of budgets AND aren't practical for the "common man" to use. Same thing with the McDonald's hamburgers. For the cost of a single fillet, I could feed myself for three days at McDonalds. As a food, the fillet is extremely cost ineffective.
So... by your Viper and fillet analogies (to Linux) and the Neons and McDonalds hamburgers (to Microsoft Windows), I get that Windows is tons more cost effective than Linux. It also says that Linux is high maintenance, rare, and not for the "common man".
Just a lesson about using analogies... they almost always demonstrate at least several other points that can be used against your argument.
It shows that many desktop users are using Windows on the basis that Microsoft has made it hard for them to run anything else.
Prove this statement. Microsoft currently and has never had a way of stopping me from installing Linux. I've installed Linux 100s of times and never have seen anything by Microsoft that prevented me.
Um, no. My logic is that "ease of use" can be taken too far and that trying to please everyone will end up pleasing no one. That scales very well.
Well, currently the goal of OSS seems to be please the minority (the techno-elite) and the rest can either become specialists to fix the problem or they can shut up and lump it.
In fact, the community says LotD! but at the same time say that if you can't figure out obtuse/confusing/sketchy/technical issues, then you are an idiot and should go away. It's a shame that folks can't see that these are mutually exclusive stances.
Very subjective post without a frame of reference for us. Is *anything* worth $400 more than the competition to you? If so, give us an example of what you would consider worth the $400. For some folks, it might be worth more than that. Just kinda depends.
Off topic: One of the interesting aspects of OSS is the kamikazi effect. As soon as one company starts to become a market leader in some area (say office suites), other competitors in that market who are falling behind can simply turn their products over to OSS (GPL it) and possibly torpedo the whole market. "Don't become too good or we'll blow the bottom out of the market!"
You sound like you are in the very group of people you are putting down...
Anyway, I know quite a few people who I consider to be very intelligent who use Macs because... ready for it?... They make the computer just a tool that does what they need it to do. They don't have to dork with it constantly, it just works and is out of the way of what they *really* want to do. They don't know how a computer works and neither do they care. What they care about is doing *their* work and not yours (the work of the OS and app writers). Why should an expert in one field have to become an expert in YOUR field in order to use a tool (the computer)?
MS Office is custom written for every site? SQL Server? Outlook?
I know what you mean about intranets and such for expense report filing and such and some apps that are core to the business (for example I know some solver codes and such), but there are a number of applications that are common to many, many places. That is the entire reason why MS Office was/is a "killer app".
Quite frankly you guys give way too much credance to "pleasing the user or else...". The user is as much part of the problem as Microsoft is.
According to your logic, anyone who ever needs surgery should be required to be (or become) a surgeon before they can receive the services of a surgeon. Similarly for automobiles and mechanics or accountants or any other job that requires some level of expertise.
Your logic does not scale at all and is typical of most of the OSS world in that they "just don't get it".
And there's nothing wrong with a niche. Macs are a niche. Mainframes are a niche. Anchovies on a pizza are a niche. All seem to be existing just fine. MS fanboys are the only one's with the "take no prisoners", "all your bases belong to us" attitude that defines the Windows world.
The vocal minority on this board are the exact opposite of this. They are the ones that proclaim that Microsoft must fall and be removed from the Earth. To do this, you *must* please users. Perhaps you aren't in that group of people, but that group is the one that most people see and then apply that to the rest.
You really didn't even have that much "freeware" compared to pay and share, until OSS took off and the idea "infected" the camp.
On the contrary, back in the day of BBSs (before the web), freeware and shareware were extremely common for all platforms. Un*x has had large volumes of freeware (compared to commercial offerings) for as long as I can remember (I started messing around on Un*x platforms back in 1986). OSS is nothing new, just a more organized and larger movement that what it was back then.
Until you and those like you lose the elitist attitude and realize that the massivly *vast* majority of computer users do not, do not want to, will not, and shouldn't be required to learn about a computer to that depth, you will forever relegate Linux to being a niche and those who use it will continue to have such a bad perceived image.
People like this hurt the Linux/OSS movement more than they help it.
Yes... exactly his point. IF you want Linux to succeed on the desktop, you will have to one day realize that the *vast* majority of users will have little to no technical experience or expertise. Not only will they have criticisms but they will not, and have absolutely no desire to, fix such issues. Instead, they will abandon it and go find something else easier to use.
It's attitudes exactly as yours that will relegate Linux to a niche. You are not helping Linux and OSS, you are hurting it.
so the whole thing snowballs until Linux dominates the niche (and in the long run all computing).
So how is this any different than today supposedly is? I thought OSS was about "choice". If Linux "runs all the computing" how different is it from the Microsoft of today supposedly is? If the only choice is Linux, then the OSS community will have become exactly what it is they purport to be against today. It seems like many people in this community are of the mindset: "Everybody should have a choice as long as it's *my* choice." Which is exactly why the group tends to get the occassional bad press about being fanatical.
Personally, I want *choice*. If I choose not to run Linux for some reason, I want to have that as an option, which many of you people seem to not want to allow me (and in fact, may attempt to cause me trouble through denial of service attacks and the like as is seen against other organizations that aren't in "favor" with the Linux community, a la SCO). With this seeming to be the sentiment of the community (at least one that is proclaimed by some of the more vocal minority), why should I not be *as* afraid, if not more-so, of the OSS/Linux community than I am of Microsoft? At least Microsoft doesn't brag about how much trouble they will cause, or intend to cause, me if I don't agree with their "world vision".
No... I think what they are trying to say is that *after* a patch is released and a description of the exploit is given, mal-ware writers then run off and use this description to write mal-ware to take advantage of folks who haven't applied the provided patches.
I don't care either way, just providing interpretation.
Why is Mono a "threat"? Is it not possible for both to exist? Perl and bsh both exist on my machine and it doesn't explode even though they overlap in functionality.
People on this board constantly complain that too many virii and worms infest Windows platforms and berate people who don't think/know to buy/download virus scanners. However, when an effort to make one included in the OS distribution, and therefore making it a standard and a standard component so that *everyone* will have one installed by default, which sounds like a pretty good idea, then you get mad at that too. I think the vast majority of users will like this "feature", personally and it might even cut down on the number of worms and the like that infest the 'net.
So, Pepsi came out and basically sided against the RIAA in a way, so a bunch of guys pay them back by screwing their contest over. Way to make friends and get support for yourselves. Since the thing is hosted on SourceForge, it will be associated with OSS and the OSS community.
...as opposed to the poster I was responding to, and a large number of people, who think that having 64-bits somehow enables some magical capabilities.
Anyone can say 64-bit = faster, that's the easiest reason of all to pick. However, only an idiot would think that it is the *only* reason and only the clueless would think that 64-bit math cannot be synthesized on processors with smaller word sizes.
I suggest you read http://ftp.digital.com/pub/Digital/info/semiconduc tor/literature/21064hrm.pdf
and in particular note the parts about Ibox (Section 2.3). Yes, the Alpha 21064 could, in some situations, launch two instructions per clock, but it was fairly restrictive (no dependencies, etc). Also, memory stalls stalled the entire pipeline (no OOOE). These features weren't added until later (21164 and 21264). So, I guess if "a LOT of stuff done per cycle" is anywhere from zero to sometimes two, then you'd be correct (Section 2.3, page 2-4). And if you'd say that seven pipeline stages is "superpipelined", then I guess it was that as well (Section 2.9, page 2-23). The Alpha was initially designed primarily for "speed" - ramping up the clock very quickly. This is why the ISA was so simple. Simple ISA = simple logic = short paths = high clock speed = more instructions per unit time.
It wasn't until later when some of the more complex logic was added that the chip got much better (the 21264, for example, was a fine chip).
3. Some calculations can be done in 64 bit ints that would not fit in 32 bit. Example, financial calculations, where $3,000,000.00 does not fit in 32 bit.
My 8-bit 65C02 can do 64-bit integer math. So can the 8088. So can the 68000. So can the 80286. So can the 80386. So can the Athlon. So can the Pentium 4.
There was a marvelous instruction that was made even way back then, in some flavors of assembly called the ADC (Add with Carry). What all of the above cannot do is store the 64-bit result in a single register or operate on the 64-bit wide value as a single operation. A 64-bit native word processor will simply do these operations faster.
Funny thing is, back when the Alpha was released, people said the same thing about it then as the anti-Intel, anti-Microsoft people say about the P4 today. My, that's a fast clock but you don't get much done per clock. And, they are just trying to sell the MHz.
All declarative languages are fundamentally equal, just the syntax is different.
Many of C# extra "features" are unnecessary "syntactic sugar",
There was a decent "article" a few days ago that linked an "interview" with the head of the C# group who "talked" about some interesting things and "addressed" a few of the "syntatic sugar" discussions. It also addresses why a number of decisions were "made" contrary to the way Java does things and why those Java "things" were considered "bad".
I'd like to see some "information" on what you think are "superfluous and harmful" in C#.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.hypertransport.org/
HyperTransport was designed by a consortium with membership that includes AMD and IBM, but not limited to them.
Yes, this was exactly my problem. I loaded a simple BMP file into Gimp, wanted to black out a part of it, then save the file back. After 10 minutes of trying to find a way to "Save File" on what I had done, I gave up. In another 10 minutes time, I had already copied the file over to another machine (using SAMBA) running Windows, loaded Paintbrush, performed my edit, saved the file, and copied the file back to my Linux box and was done. There is no reason why something as *basic* as saving what you had done should be so hard to find.
Don't equate "expensive" with good either, as is very clear in your analogies. Vipers are very expensive and out of the reach of budgets AND aren't practical for the "common man" to use. Same thing with the McDonald's hamburgers. For the cost of a single fillet, I could feed myself for three days at McDonalds. As a food, the fillet is extremely cost ineffective.
So... by your Viper and fillet analogies (to Linux) and the Neons and McDonalds hamburgers (to Microsoft Windows), I get that Windows is tons more cost effective than Linux. It also says that Linux is high maintenance, rare, and not for the "common man".
Just a lesson about using analogies... they almost always demonstrate at least several other points that can be used against your argument.
It shows that many desktop users are using Windows on the basis that Microsoft has made it hard for them to run anything else.
Prove this statement. Microsoft currently and has never had a way of stopping me from installing Linux. I've installed Linux 100s of times and never have seen anything by Microsoft that prevented me.
Um, no. My logic is that "ease of use" can be taken too far and that trying to please everyone will end up pleasing no one. That scales very well.
Well, currently the goal of OSS seems to be please the minority (the techno-elite) and the rest can either become specialists to fix the problem or they can shut up and lump it.
In fact, the community says LotD! but at the same time say that if you can't figure out obtuse/confusing/sketchy/technical issues, then you are an idiot and should go away. It's a shame that folks can't see that these are mutually exclusive stances.
Very subjective post without a frame of reference for us. Is *anything* worth $400 more than the competition to you? If so, give us an example of what you would consider worth the $400. For some folks, it might be worth more than that. Just kinda depends.
Off topic:
One of the interesting aspects of OSS is the kamikazi effect. As soon as one company starts to become a market leader in some area (say office suites), other competitors in that market who are falling behind can simply turn their products over to OSS (GPL it) and possibly torpedo the whole market. "Don't become too good or we'll blow the bottom out of the market!"
Linux is every bit as well documented as Unix.
Amen! That's exactly ESR's point in his editorial.
You sound like you are in the very group of people you are putting down...
Anyway, I know quite a few people who I consider to be very intelligent who use Macs because... ready for it?... They make the computer just a tool that does what they need it to do. They don't have to dork with it constantly, it just works and is out of the way of what they *really* want to do. They don't know how a computer works and neither do they care. What they care about is doing *their* work and not yours (the work of the OS and app writers). Why should an expert in one field have to become an expert in YOUR field in order to use a tool (the computer)?
MS Office is custom written for every site? SQL Server? Outlook?
I know what you mean about intranets and such for expense report filing and such and some apps that are core to the business (for example I know some solver codes and such), but there are a number of applications that are common to many, many places. That is the entire reason why MS Office was/is a "killer app".
Quite frankly you guys give way too much credance to "pleasing the user or else...". The user is as much part of the problem as Microsoft is.
According to your logic, anyone who ever needs surgery should be required to be (or become) a surgeon before they can receive the services of a surgeon. Similarly for automobiles and mechanics or accountants or any other job that requires some level of expertise.
Your logic does not scale at all and is typical of most of the OSS world in that they "just don't get it".
And there's nothing wrong with a niche. Macs are a niche. Mainframes are a niche. Anchovies on a pizza are a niche. All seem to be existing just fine. MS fanboys are the only one's with the "take no prisoners", "all your bases belong to us" attitude that defines the Windows world.
The vocal minority on this board are the exact opposite of this. They are the ones that proclaim that Microsoft must fall and be removed from the Earth. To do this, you *must* please users. Perhaps you aren't in that group of people, but that group is the one that most people see and then apply that to the rest.
You really didn't even have that much "freeware" compared to pay and share, until OSS took off and the idea "infected" the camp.
On the contrary, back in the day of BBSs (before the web), freeware and shareware were extremely common for all platforms. Un*x has had large volumes of freeware (compared to commercial offerings) for as long as I can remember (I started messing around on Un*x platforms back in 1986). OSS is nothing new, just a more organized and larger movement that what it was back then.
Until you and those like you lose the elitist attitude and realize that the massivly *vast* majority of computer users do not, do not want to, will not, and shouldn't be required to learn about a computer to that depth, you will forever relegate Linux to being a niche and those who use it will continue to have such a bad perceived image.
People like this hurt the Linux/OSS movement more than they help it.
Yes... exactly his point. IF you want Linux to succeed on the desktop, you will have to one day realize that the *vast* majority of users will have little to no technical experience or expertise. Not only will they have criticisms but they will not, and have absolutely no desire to, fix such issues. Instead, they will abandon it and go find something else easier to use.
It's attitudes exactly as yours that will relegate Linux to a niche. You are not helping Linux and OSS, you are hurting it.
so the whole thing snowballs until Linux dominates the niche (and in the long run all computing).
So how is this any different than today supposedly is? I thought OSS was about "choice". If Linux "runs all the computing" how different is it from the Microsoft of today supposedly is? If the only choice is Linux, then the OSS community will have become exactly what it is they purport to be against today. It seems like many people in this community are of the mindset: "Everybody should have a choice as long as it's *my* choice." Which is exactly why the group tends to get the occassional bad press about being fanatical.
Personally, I want *choice*. If I choose not to run Linux for some reason, I want to have that as an option, which many of you people seem to not want to allow me (and in fact, may attempt to cause me trouble through denial of service attacks and the like as is seen against other organizations that aren't in "favor" with the Linux community, a la SCO). With this seeming to be the sentiment of the community (at least one that is proclaimed by some of the more vocal minority), why should I not be *as* afraid, if not more-so, of the OSS/Linux community than I am of Microsoft? At least Microsoft doesn't brag about how much trouble they will cause, or intend to cause, me if I don't agree with their "world vision".
No... I think what they are trying to say is that *after* a patch is released and a description of the exploit is given, mal-ware writers then run off and use this description to write mal-ware to take advantage of folks who haven't applied the provided patches.
I don't care either way, just providing interpretation.
Why is Mono a "threat"? Is it not possible for both to exist? Perl and bsh both exist on my machine and it doesn't explode even though they overlap in functionality.
So... damned if they do, damned if they don't?
People on this board constantly complain that too many virii and worms infest Windows platforms and berate people who don't think/know to buy/download virus scanners. However, when an effort to make one included in the OS distribution, and therefore making it a standard and a standard component so that *everyone* will have one installed by default, which sounds like a pretty good idea, then you get mad at that too. I think the vast majority of users will like this "feature", personally and it might even cut down on the number of worms and the like that infest the 'net.
INTEL WAS SIMPLY FOLLOWING IN AMD'S FOOTSTEPS.
Yeah, because EVERYONE knows that AMD had the world's first 64-bit processor.
So, Pepsi came out and basically sided against the RIAA in a way, so a bunch of guys pay them back by screwing their contest over. Way to make friends and get support for yourselves. Since the thing is hosted on SourceForge, it will be associated with OSS and the OSS community.
Great going guys.
...as opposed to the poster I was responding to, and a large number of people, who think that having 64-bits somehow enables some magical capabilities.
Anyone can say 64-bit = faster, that's the easiest reason of all to pick. However, only an idiot would think that it is the *only* reason and only the clueless would think that 64-bit math cannot be synthesized on processors with smaller word sizes.
I suggest you read http://ftp.digital.com/pub/Digital/info/semiconduc tor/literature/21064hrm.pdf
and in particular note the parts about Ibox (Section 2.3). Yes, the Alpha 21064 could, in some situations, launch two instructions per clock, but it was fairly restrictive (no dependencies, etc). Also, memory stalls stalled the entire pipeline (no OOOE). These features weren't added until later (21164 and 21264). So, I guess if "a LOT of stuff done per cycle" is anywhere from zero to sometimes two, then you'd be correct (Section 2.3, page 2-4). And if you'd say that seven pipeline stages is "superpipelined", then I guess it was that as well (Section 2.9, page 2-23). The Alpha was initially designed primarily for "speed" - ramping up the clock very quickly. This is why the ISA was so simple. Simple ISA = simple logic = short paths = high clock speed = more instructions per unit time.
It wasn't until later when some of the more complex logic was added that the chip got much better (the 21264, for example, was a fine chip).
Intel sure knows how to keep a secret. So what will these mystery Xeon-class 64 bit CPU's be? Opeterons with an 'i' painted on them?
/rolleyes
Yeah, just like Athlons were Pentium IIIs with white-out on em and ball point pen scribbled "Athlon".
3. Some calculations can be done in 64 bit ints that would not fit in 32 bit. Example, financial calculations, where $3,000,000.00 does not fit in 32 bit.
My 8-bit 65C02 can do 64-bit integer math. So can the 8088. So can the 68000. So can the 80286. So can the 80386. So can the Athlon. So can the Pentium 4.
There was a marvelous instruction that was made even way back then, in some flavors of assembly called the ADC (Add with Carry). What all of the above cannot do is store the 64-bit result in a single register or operate on the 64-bit wide value as a single operation. A 64-bit native word processor will simply do these operations faster.
Funny thing is, back when the Alpha was released, people said the same thing about it then as the anti-Intel, anti-Microsoft people say about the P4 today. My, that's a fast clock but you don't get much done per clock. And, they are just trying to sell the MHz.
Sure. Intel cares about one thing: selling chips. If supporing other OSs sell more of their chips, they will support it. It only makes sense.
All declarative languages are fundamentally equal, just the syntax is different.
Many of C# extra "features" are unnecessary "syntactic sugar",
There was a decent "article" a few days ago that linked an "interview" with the head of the C# group who "talked" about some interesting things and "addressed" a few of the "syntatic sugar" discussions. It also addresses why a number of decisions were "made" contrary to the way Java does things and why those Java "things" were considered "bad".
I'd like to see some "information" on what you think are "superfluous and harmful" in C#.