"However, the interface has NOTHING to do with development!"
On other point: Interface has everything to do with development. Software engineers do more than just type in code and hit 'compile'. They go through lots of design revisions. They have to communicate with their team. They have to pass documents around. They browse the web. They use their computers the same way anybody else with an office job does.
Once they got Linux working, all that stuff basically works now. But man was it a headache getting them running. It's funny how finnicky Linux can be sometimes.
"I would have to honestly question the skill of those four "very experienced software engineers"."
Careful, that sword is double edged. If they're unskilled, then Linux is a terrible end user OS. If they're skilled, then Linux is a terrible end user OS. Best not to get into that debate, other than to say "it could use refinement". The problems were along the lines of getting network connections going.
"A windows enviroment is hardly a "reliable" enviroment. Development on a windows box is painful at best, having kernel level memory leaks, lack of control of the development enviroment makes it a worst case enviroment not a best case. BTW, what makes you think that windows is the "defacto" standard for development? "
I didn't communicate very clearly, I apologize. I was talking in terms of 'usability', not development. Development on any environment is a bitch. I won't argue with Windows having kernel problems, but Linux has it's own set of problems. For example, hardware support is nowhere near as robust as it is on Windows. The worst part is that vendors don't support Linux. Is that Linux's fault? Not really, no. However, anything it can do to get on more desktops would help that A LOT.
As for boosting productivity: I have no doubt that Linux has some nitty gritty one could get into to tweak productivity. That doesn't mean everybody will do it. The design of the interface and the apps have to expose that type of functionality. If you're having to learn scripting in Linux to make this productivity happen, then it is an area that could use refinement.
"This idea would have been great pre-napster, but not today..."
This idea would have been great pre-calling-everybody-a-theif. I doubt I'm the only one who feels the RIAA doesn't deserve a second chance after that.
Frankly, I think any corporation that takes the stance that customers aren't basically honest should learn a humbling lesson. I certainly don't think the RIAA should recieve money from the people it tried to condemn with the SSSCA.
It may be a 'real OS', but it still has some problems to shake out. I have 4 very experienced software engineers sitting behind me (who all have background in Unix and Linux) who have switched over to Linux for development. They have all had little niggling issues that took DAYS to work out. Linux does not provide an 'easy to use' enough interface to troubleshoot and fix these problems like Windows does. Linux may be cheap/free, but there's still the adoption cycle that costs time and money. Will it be worth it over time? Well I hope so. I'd love to see Linux become more successful.
Despite popular belief, Windows 2000 (and even XP) is reliable. Plus, it's the defacto standard that both software developers and your onboard staff can use. Linux has gotten a lot better over the last couple of years, but it still needs some end-user refinement. When the Linux community starts focusing on GUI design (as opposed to fixing 'bugs'),MS will really have something to wee-wee in their pants about.
Take a good hard look at OSX. It's built on top of BSD. It's fully functional as an OS, and it's useful! You don't even need to know the root password to get around on OSX. The user uses it, and doesnt feel like he/she's gonna break it. The Linux Community should be observing OSX under a microscope. Apple has put a lot of design effort into this OS to make it useable. This type of usability can be done with Linux.
Today, Linux is still a niche OS. Chalk me up to trolling if you like, but I would strongly recommend the Linux community listen to my criticisms. The worst case scenario is that Linux becomes a better product.
"Of all the stupid things Redhat has bought or funded over the last few years, why can't they step in and front some cash and open up blender. "
I don't think that's good idea. I think Redhat would be better off making an 'artist' distro that comes with Gimp, Killustrator, and eventually a version of Gimp that works like After Effects. Basically, they'd make one big distro that has all the tools us 3D Arists need. If they do that, then they make Redhat far more enticing as a graphic-workstation platform. That would give Newtek more reason to port Lightwave (which kicks Blender's butt up and down the court) over to Linux.
That'd be a hell of a deal. "Buy Lightwave, get RedHat Artist's edition for only $100 more. No need to spend $500 each on Photoshop and After Effects, and no need to have a Windows license!"
"Unfortunately, I think that neilson does NOT track commercial viewing, only what shows have viewers."
They don't explicitly state that they'll track commercial skipping. However, they do mention 'play-back based reporting systems', which implies to me more than 'what is captured and recorded'.
I am making a pretty big assumption there, but I don't think I'm totally off base there. It'd almost be idiotic of them not to capture that data.
... that Tivo (or variants) is the best method I have to watch their programming. I'm sorry, but my life is not based around time-slots. If they want me to watch their commercials, they need to find a way to make that compelling to me.
If they use this data to say "people are filtering out commercials", the proper response is NOT to disable the commercial filtering technology. If commercials are so obnoxious that people will spend $400 for a gadget that filters them, then the problem is definitely not that people are thieves. The problem is that they're not catering to their audience. If I am willing to spend that much money to filter commercials, then removing my ability to do that will result in removing my interest in watching TV.
If they're smart, they'll use the data gathered here to say "Maybe we should cut commericals down from 2 minutes to one minute, and have fewer breaks. That way, people won't be bothered to use the 30-second skip." Heck, if AOL can learn this lesson, why not the TV Industry? Funny thing is, I can see this approach resulting in people watching TV for longer. My attention span is short enough as it is. A commercial can kill my interest in a show. That's not good.
They didn't count all the batteries in my electronics, I had an 8-pak of double AA's and another 8-pak of AAA's. (with 4 of the AAA's gone) He pulled me aside and suggested I carry no more than 4, presumably he meant spares.
He didnt: a.) Demand it b.) Perform an unwarranted search c.) Treat me negatively in any way. He just said don't carry more than four.
Act stinky about it if ya want, but seriously, what's the hub-bub? If one can buy AA batteries in any country, why carry an 8-pack around like I was? Pretty stupid of me. They were on sale. Heh.
Or a Game Boy Advance? For use on an airplane, laptops have the following problems:
1.) Size: It's not comfy to use a laptop actively on an airplane. Either you have to rest it on your lap (horrible ergonomics), or the guy in front of you will lay his seat back and make you panic for a mo.
2.) Battery life: I realize Macs are efficient and all, but it IS an issue. With a GBA, just bring an extra set of batteries. You shouldn't need more than 4 AA's total on your trip. (Psst tip: Don't bring more than 4 AA's on an airplane trip. I did that on a trip recently and one of the security personell mentioned that looked supsicious and recommended I carry no more than 4.
3.) Startup/shutdown time: May not seem like much, but there's a big difference between 60 seconds of bootup or shutdown, and 'click' your GBA is off.
4.) Control: Control is horrible on a laptop for most games. If the ergonomics don't get you, the lack of space for a mouse to move will.
5.) Carry on: I find it to be a nuisance to unpack and put away a laptop on a plane. I can imagine most people who've tried this have the same sentiment. Not like a GBA where you just slip it in your pocket.
I know my suggestion doesn't meet all your requirements. I thought I'd mention it though because I had a similar problem myself a couple of months ago. Despite the fact that I have a teeny weeny laptop, I came to the conclusion that a GBA with a couple of games and a couple of Douglas Adams books were far more suitable and comfortable than a laptop. My laptop didn't turn into an interesting game machine until I got to the hotel. The nice thing about a GBA is that it plays nearly all GB games (dirt cheap), it's efficient with batteries, and it's form factor is quite suitable for a plane.
"And even if your guess was correct, your argument still doesn't hold water. How could anyone watch a movie umpteen times without finding it enjoyable? "
The basic point I was making was that some people have a way of overanalyzing the shit out of any movie until they don't like it anymore.
However, that did not really apply in your case. I think lumped your post in with somebody else's and misunderstood the point. Didn't realize that until you responded and I reread your post. I apologize, error on my part.
"But I cannot force myself to watch the dredge that is referred to as Star Trek. Personally, I liked episodes 4,5, and 6; the new episodes: 1 and 2, are especially disheartening. Hopefully, Star Trek will improve in episode 3."
Partick Stewart had a much better variation of this joke. Here's his quote from Saturday Night Live:
I have no illusions why I'm here tonight.
It's because of "Star Trek: The Next Generation." (applause) Well, thank you very much, but I have a confession to make. When I was first given the role of Captain Jean-Luc Picard, I pretended to take it all in my stride; I was so cool in interviews; I claimed never to have seen the original classic Trek. But, it was all an act, because inside, I was so ecstatic... I was delirious... You see, not only am i probably the biggest Star Trek fan of all time, but well, as my friends can tell you, I am virtually an encyclopedia of Star Trek facts and trivia.
Well now, for example, listen: Here's a fact I bet you don't know. On the original show, the name of the space ship was not the "Star Trek"! No, no, it was in fact, the "Enterprise". Now that's true.
Now, all right, here's another one: Everyone knows that the part of Captain James M. Kirk was played by William Shiner. Then of course later he was to become very famous as the Six Million Dollar Man. But how many of you here know which actor played the chief medical officer, Dr. McCray, who was of course otherwise known as Boney? You give up, don't you? Well that was Forest D. Kelley.
Well perhaps you knew that one, but can you name to me the ship's other medical officer... you see, because of course, there were two. You see, you're stumped. You are forgetting Dr. Spock. Now you remember, right? He was the pointy eared creature, you know? Half human, half volcano, and he was forever tormenting old Boney with his cold volcano logic, and uh...
All right.. here's another bit of trivia. Did you know that another Star Trek character, Captain Sulu, was the first black woman ever on television? Anyway, being the Star Trek trivia maniac that I am, well you can imagine my feelings when I first learned that I won the role of Captain Picard. I felt a kinship, you know, with all those unforgettable legendary chartacters... Kirk, Boney, and especially Spock, and I even know... well I wrote a note to Leonard Fortnoy, but I guess he never received it. Anyway, Leonard, if you're watching, this is for you.
Outer space: the last frontier. These are the trips of the Star Trek Enterprise. Its five year plan calls for us to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly fly where no man has gone in space.
Slashdot Mirror
"Its' like stealing from the city dump. It may be illegal but who's going to stop you."
Nobody, unless you're allergic to dogs.
Just to be clear: I'm talking about giving more visual control to the user. I'm NOT talking about removing things like scripting in Linux.
"PS3 chip will have near "supercomputer capabilities"
I predict that these 'supercomputer capabilities' will be illustrated by technological demos of games that have no sound, contorl, or AI.
"This processor can add 1+1 over 3 trillion times!"
I hope they realize that I buy game systems to play games, not rendering in 3D.
"I think when he means by a REAL OS he means a server OS like soalris and AIX. I dont think he was talking about desktops. "
Hmm I didn't assume that because I thought it was common knowledge that Linux has a huge share of the server market. Even my dad knows that. Heh.
Fair point, though. I agree with you there. Linux is a kick ass OS for servers, and it also kicks ass for developing PC-based appliances.
"However, the interface has NOTHING to do with development!"
On other point: Interface has everything to do with development. Software engineers do more than just type in code and hit 'compile'. They go through lots of design revisions. They have to communicate with their team. They have to pass documents around. They browse the web. They use their computers the same way anybody else with an office job does.
Once they got Linux working, all that stuff basically works now. But man was it a headache getting them running. It's funny how finnicky Linux can be sometimes.
"I would have to honestly question the skill of those four "very experienced software engineers"."
Careful, that sword is double edged. If they're unskilled, then Linux is a terrible end user OS. If they're skilled, then Linux is a terrible end user OS. Best not to get into that debate, other than to say "it could use refinement". The problems were along the lines of getting network connections going.
"A windows enviroment is hardly a "reliable" enviroment. Development on a windows box is painful at best, having kernel level memory leaks, lack of control of the development enviroment makes it a worst case enviroment not a best case. BTW, what makes you think that windows is the "defacto" standard for development? "
I didn't communicate very clearly, I apologize. I was talking in terms of 'usability', not development. Development on any environment is a bitch. I won't argue with Windows having kernel problems, but Linux has it's own set of problems. For example, hardware support is nowhere near as robust as it is on Windows. The worst part is that vendors don't support Linux. Is that Linux's fault? Not really, no. However, anything it can do to get on more desktops would help that A LOT.
As for boosting productivity: I have no doubt that Linux has some nitty gritty one could get into to tweak productivity. That doesn't mean everybody will do it. The design of the interface and the apps have to expose that type of functionality. If you're having to learn scripting in Linux to make this productivity happen, then it is an area that could use refinement.
Oh man. Imagine playing Oddworld: Abe's Exodus like that.
"This idea would have been great pre-napster, but not today..."
This idea would have been great pre-calling-everybody-a-theif. I doubt I'm the only one who feels the RIAA doesn't deserve a second chance after that.
Frankly, I think any corporation that takes the stance that customers aren't basically honest should learn a humbling lesson. I certainly don't think the RIAA should recieve money from the people it tried to condemn with the SSSCA.
It may be a 'real OS', but it still has some problems to shake out. I have 4 very experienced software engineers sitting behind me (who all have background in Unix and Linux) who have switched over to Linux for development. They have all had little niggling issues that took DAYS to work out. Linux does not provide an 'easy to use' enough interface to troubleshoot and fix these problems like Windows does. Linux may be cheap/free, but there's still the adoption cycle that costs time and money. Will it be worth it over time? Well I hope so. I'd love to see Linux become more successful.
Despite popular belief, Windows 2000 (and even XP) is reliable. Plus, it's the defacto standard that both software developers and your onboard staff can use. Linux has gotten a lot better over the last couple of years, but it still needs some end-user refinement. When the Linux community starts focusing on GUI design (as opposed to fixing 'bugs'),MS will really have something to wee-wee in their pants about.
Take a good hard look at OSX. It's built on top of BSD. It's fully functional as an OS, and it's useful! You don't even need to know the root password to get around on OSX. The user uses it, and doesnt feel like he/she's gonna break it. The Linux Community should be observing OSX under a microscope. Apple has put a lot of design effort into this OS to make it useable. This type of usability can be done with Linux.
Today, Linux is still a niche OS. Chalk me up to trolling if you like, but I would strongly recommend the Linux community listen to my criticisms. The worst case scenario is that Linux becomes a better product.
My first digital TV will likely be a card I stick in my computer.
"Of all the stupid things Redhat has bought or funded over the last few years, why can't they step in and front some cash and open up blender. "
I don't think that's good idea. I think Redhat would be better off making an 'artist' distro that comes with Gimp, Killustrator, and eventually a version of Gimp that works like After Effects. Basically, they'd make one big distro that has all the tools us 3D Arists need. If they do that, then they make Redhat far more enticing as a graphic-workstation platform. That would give Newtek more reason to port Lightwave (which kicks Blender's butt up and down the court) over to Linux.
That'd be a hell of a deal. "Buy Lightwave, get RedHat Artist's edition for only $100 more. No need to spend $500 each on Photoshop and After Effects, and no need to have a Windows license!"
"Unfortunately, I think that neilson does NOT track commercial viewing, only what shows have viewers."
They don't explicitly state that they'll track commercial skipping. However, they do mention 'play-back based reporting systems', which implies to me more than 'what is captured and recorded'.
I am making a pretty big assumption there, but I don't think I'm totally off base there. It'd almost be idiotic of them not to capture that data.
... that Tivo (or variants) is the best method I have to watch their programming. I'm sorry, but my life is not based around time-slots. If they want me to watch their commercials, they need to find a way to make that compelling to me.
If they use this data to say "people are filtering out commercials", the proper response is NOT to disable the commercial filtering technology. If commercials are so obnoxious that people will spend $400 for a gadget that filters them, then the problem is definitely not that people are thieves. The problem is that they're not catering to their audience. If I am willing to spend that much money to filter commercials, then removing my ability to do that will result in removing my interest in watching TV.
If they're smart, they'll use the data gathered here to say "Maybe we should cut commericals down from 2 minutes to one minute, and have fewer breaks. That way, people won't be bothered to use the 30-second skip." Heck, if AOL can learn this lesson, why not the TV Industry?
Funny thing is, I can see this approach resulting in people watching TV for longer. My attention span is short enough as it is. A commercial can kill my interest in a show. That's not good.
I flew internationally. Might make a difference, I dunno.
It's just a tip that one of the security personell recommended.
You realize, though, that real life girls are 4-dimensional. 5 if you count their emotional state.
oooo finally, somebody else that has broken sword! heh
...*
*thinks that one's gonna go with me to work
*G*
Cheers man
Why are you ranting at me about it?
They didn't count all the batteries in my electronics, I had an 8-pak of double AA's and another 8-pak of AAA's. (with 4 of the AAA's gone)
He pulled me aside and suggested I carry no more than 4, presumably he meant spares.
He didnt:
a.) Demand it
b.) Perform an unwarranted search
c.) Treat me negatively in any way. He just said don't carry more than four.
Act stinky about it if ya want, but seriously, what's the hub-bub? If one can buy AA batteries in any country, why carry an 8-pack around like I was? Pretty stupid of me. They were on sale. Heh.
Yeah, that was thought provoking. I feel like im in an AOL chatroom. Heh
The problem with Master of Orion 2 is that it puts people into suspended animation.
Or a Game Boy Advance? For use on an airplane, laptops have the following problems:
1.) Size: It's not comfy to use a laptop actively on an airplane. Either you have to rest it on your lap (horrible ergonomics), or the guy in front of you will lay his seat back and make you panic for a mo.
2.) Battery life: I realize Macs are efficient and all, but it IS an issue. With a GBA, just bring an extra set of batteries. You shouldn't need more than 4 AA's total on your trip. (Psst tip: Don't bring more than 4 AA's on an airplane trip. I did that on a trip recently and one of the security personell mentioned that looked supsicious and recommended I carry no more than 4.
3.) Startup/shutdown time: May not seem like much, but there's a big difference between 60 seconds of bootup or shutdown, and 'click' your GBA is off.
4.) Control: Control is horrible on a laptop for most games. If the ergonomics don't get you, the lack of space for a mouse to move will.
5.) Carry on: I find it to be a nuisance to unpack and put away a laptop on a plane. I can imagine most people who've tried this have the same sentiment. Not like a GBA where you just slip it in your pocket.
I know my suggestion doesn't meet all your requirements. I thought I'd mention it though because I had a similar problem myself a couple of months ago. Despite the fact that I have a teeny weeny laptop, I came to the conclusion that a GBA with a couple of games and a couple of Douglas Adams books were far more suitable and comfortable than a laptop. My laptop didn't turn into an interesting game machine until I got to the hotel. The nice thing about a GBA is that it plays nearly all GB games (dirt cheap), it's efficient with batteries, and it's form factor is quite suitable for a plane.
"And even if your guess was correct, your argument still doesn't hold water. How could anyone watch a movie umpteen times without finding it enjoyable? "
The basic point I was making was that some people have a way of overanalyzing the shit out of any movie until they don't like it anymore.
However, that did not really apply in your case. I think lumped your post in with somebody else's and misunderstood the point. Didn't realize that until you responded and I reread your post. I apologize, error on my part.
Cheers.
"100 times each? Does that post make you a "shithead" too? "
Lol, no.
I've actually heard of people who have claimed to have seen each ST and SW movie at least 100 times.
Or maybe there was a short lived fad where Klingons sanded down their skulls. Maybe it's the Klingon equivalent of bell-bottoms.
"The fact that ST II is arguably still the best Trek movie is another source of shame. "
You might enjoy the movies more if you watched them fewer than 100 times each.
Partick Stewart had a much better variation of this joke. Here's his quote from Saturday Night Live: