Thanks replying inline to sound like you know something important.
The parents posts were valid points, and you truly added nothing to them.
The sad truth though is that you both miss the point about the article being directed towards taking over the desktop. Not the server domain -- which is already fine for people like you.
Let take a look at that though, shall we...
The backend mail system and file security system should be interchangable. A good admin can make that happen if they work at it enough on Linux. A mediocre (read cheaper labor) admin can do the same task on Windows.
Windows support of user management is very good. Meaning it is well integrated across the filesystem, Operating system API, and user mode applications. (Not excellent)... but at least it doesn't suck as bad as sudo, and has a GUI for the administrator. (I define GUI as something that is not a terribly designed after thought. It also has to be the same across a variety of installations... which by the way sudo is not even available out of the box across varying installs of different distros)
Good point, and beyond that Windows has already reached the critical mass for this generation too, and so will stay on top through the next generation. It's really already too late for Linux to supplant them in the next two years.
The reason companies don't throw away money on a market that doesn't exist, is because that would be really stupid. The reason that people don't want to pay money for something that doesn't work, is because that would be really stupid too.
To be honest though, I think Linux should allow and even embrace binary drivers... and binary only applications. Companies want to make money. If Linux wants the desktop, then make it easier for companies make money on the platform. (As opposed to implying that those companies are capitilistic bastards for wanting to make money.)
I'm a developer and a business man, and I won't put a dollar towards this stupidity until I see a shift in the community that allows me to make money on it. And, I mean any money at all. Borland tried it and failed. Cray and SGI tried it and failed. Why. Linux geeks/users/whatever don't like to pay 1 penny for software.
No one is going to ship Linux for any reason other than it is free, and they know that this will backfire... why... because what about the rest of the applications... they're not all free... yet! And, when they are free, that means no more money is coming into anything except hardware. And just a reminder here that hardware has been a losing proposition for quite a long time now.
So, for now I develop for cross platform and keep my code released only on windows. Because, anything else is currently just dumb from a practical point of view.
Thanks, and I welcome opposing points of view.
Please be polite though. I do not intend to be flamebait or a troll.
My question is...
Does anyone have a laptop/tablet that can last for 4 to 6 hours on a battery. I'm sick of 5 minute battery life, and would be willing to use a 300mhz laptop if I could use it to read on for 4 or 5 hours.
As much as I agree, I have to point out that you are glossing over the lack of acheivements by desktop environment makers in general.
Let's face it... over the last 10..15 years there has been almost no marked improvement in User Interface design across free and proprietary software. It has taken this long to make the GUI as useful as the cmd line used to be. My hope is that 10 years from now user interface design will begin to truly include other aspects of interfacing with our hardware and software.
ie.) speech, sound and other kinestetic devices are needed.
And, before some of you jump on this and say "Hey moron, look at this invariably incorrect link where what you talk about already exists." I ask that you only point out that link if it is not a crappy junk toy that doesn't work very well. (Dragon Naturally speaking, and crummy little keyboard knockoffs -- I'm talking about you.)
Here is the unfortunate part. Basically as that shift in design occurs, everyone starts to ignore the GUI model (in favor of the new paradigm) which will just then become usable from a highly productive standpoint.
Again, we will basically be set back around a decade, while we try to work out the new paradigm.
Open source, closed source, I don't care... both will emulate a major design improvement anyways. Its a big plagarism fest on both sides of the fence.
But.. open source allows for this evolution to occur quickly and unhindered by the baggage of the previous paradigm. (Open source developers typically don't care much about backwards compatibility -- just use the old code if that is what you need)
Personally, I'll be glad for the shift forward that a new paradigm will bring. I'm just saddened to read complaints about how bad the current state of affairs are -- especially when it is not paired with people calling out for paradigm shifts that could truly make a large impact on the overall user experience.
Streaming text can and often is faster than streaming binary files from disk. You might find this surprising. I did too. If you are streaming over a network, then god help us all, but I'll give you that it would be a ton slower to stream text as opposed to binary over a network.
Perhaps you are still using C or Pascal though -- where you can actually stream binary "records" from file directly into the data type. (I know that c approaches that problem differently, but it is still fast, so its the same for my purpose.) Text, and binary both still need to be loaded and parsed (except with c), and maybe your method calls stream directly to memory. I don't know. Nowadays we like this thing called portability.
By the way, I don't have any problem with my load times. Loading happens basically immediately for me. Perhaps I'm using optimizations that you haven't thought of, but I doubt it. More likely, it is that you are making incorrect assumptions.
hmm, that's interesting...
I hadn't thought about it outside the sphere of software development.
But, I can now see some interesting corelations there.
Just for the record... It works great as the format in my 3d engine. And I'm not an idiot.
By the way, anyone who loads files in a 3d engine past the initialization load time of the project might be making a bad mistake.
It should be pointed out that it doesn't matter much what format you use in the long run, and also that there are various good reasons to make different choices along the way.
Space is less of a concern now, and will be less of a concern as time goes on. And if this is not true in a given situation, text can be easily compressed. Reading in the xml format is fast and getting faster, so load times are going down. The format easily accomidates extensions. The format includes a great number of well thought out concepts that makes it easier to work with.
One other thing to point out is that, just because the original developers of the format were shortsighted in its application does not necessarily mean that other very useful applications are not available.
The C programming language is a good example of that.
well the way i see it, is that we can read very little from the past. those acheologists talk so much crap about what actually happened but they have very little evidence to support it, in fact anything couldve happened.
Not true. This is the mass media invoking its opinion on you so that you will believe anything. Indeed there are real facts and evidence that strongly support various viewpoints. Sometimes the evidence helps to completely eliminate the stupidest ideas entirely.
It is true that there is little evidence from the past. However, it is still meaningful evidence and useful. For example modern genetics research helps scientists to know how animals have evolved and allows us to see which animals have a common ancestor.
Before this revelation, predictions (about common ancestors for example) were made due to massive amounts of evidence. Now we have emperical data to make the result difinitive.
we could have went through several iterations of technological epochs like the one were enjoying now, with out a shred of evidence that it even existed, look at the pyramids and such, they say that they were built with brute strength, piling dirt underneath those massive monoliths to raise them. ok maybe so, but maybe not.
Actually not. There hasn't been enough time for humanity to accomplish that. And if I were wrong about that, then there would be evidence of it. Metal work, stone work, plastic, silicon or any other refined material at all. So far nothing except clay... and so far we have found 65 million year old fossils. So... chance of this multiple epoch scenario you speak of... 1.0 * 10^-10000000 percent. To be fair, the chance that we have lost useful technology over the years is %100.
there isnt even any concrete proof that we are evolved from primates, as far as im concerned we may be evolved from pigs, or whales or whatever, or perhaps they evolved from us.
Actually, the evidence points to a common ancestor. And yes there is a mountain of evidence supporting it.
the only reason we think that humanity has only been around 50k years is because thats what fossil evidence remains, well look at new york city for instance, how much fossil evidence remains that people lived there in 1850. i mean large lasting structures, that will tell the people of 52006 that there were people there in 1850.
The aluminum super structures and the piles of iron dust, perhaps stainless steel, and burried glass. Cement with rebar in it... (burried of course). Giant stone monuments, and buildings constructed out of 6 foot concrete walls. The aluminum blocks from cars. Underground subway systems. Insulated wiring.
as far as im concerned we could be far more ancient as a race than we give ourselves credit. we live a very short time in the grand scheme of things, and keep very poor records. look at how fast other animals adapt, 50k years ago, we were probably so much different we wouldnt even recognize our ancestors fossils if we found them.
This is only true if we indeed came from another planet. But the evidence is strongly against that. The evidence shows that we evolved here.
there were probably millions of species that existed that didnt leave a shred of evidence that they ever lived. then there are people who think we came here from venus or mars, thats just as likely as well. it makes alot more sense to me than that we descended from apes. thing is about evolution is this, if the mutation makes the creature better suited for survival, it will compete with the old version and completely replace it, and so on. so why are there apes remaining? wouldnt we have replaced them before becoming so different that we couldnt reproduce? its all a crock of shit.
This is a common theological misconception about the
Welcome to the land of software development idiocy.
This is where you have a bunch of people on one side of the fence yelling that there is perfectly viable bussiness reasons to adopt open source... and on the other side of the fence you have even more people that wouldn't pay for surgery that could save their own life. (Since practically no one pays for anything open source, no one really makes much money from it.)
Then you get people that start out with open source projects, and then turn the project into a commercial venture... thereby ticking off everyone that helped for free because they wanted a free solution. I speak from experience here. I've been ticked off on occasion, after helping with a project that was then turned into a closed source program and sold as the main product for a company. What's that I hear??? Oh... You should sue... Give me a break. That would cost more money than I would get back, and with that, we've now reached the full circle of stupidity here.
By the way... I'm not angry or bitter about this... It happened a few years ago now. I'm just trying to make a point about the sometimes strange dynamics of large groups of people working on a software project. If you change a couple of minor details then you can easily apply the same kinds of arguments to closed source software too.
The same was true from 16 to 32 bit. Basically, software has to take advantage of a relatively minor increase in technology for you to notice the difference. It will be awhile before that happens.
No need to get back in time, or wait for new games. If you like the old ones, they are still out there. Go ahead and buy them.
New games need to look good. (Remember, Just as many of the old games suffered from poor gameplay too!)
You would not have wanted text based games on your nintendo.
3d is plain better than 2d.
Personally though, I like the old games, and I buy them still. I don't think that there are enough people out there like me to justify a game shop betting the company on a 2d scroller though.
I'm kind of split on what my answers would have been, and I have both novell and microsoft operating systems.
I'm curious why I did not get to take the survey... Was it a stealth ninja survey delivered with a dart through a quickly closing door, and returned by another ninja courier service?
Probably varies from College to College. I've learned these things too, but on my own with college text books. So, I'm sure that they must be trying to teach it in college.
Live Girls vs Advanced Circuit Design and the aroma of solder.
|
| Circuit Design
|
| R e a l___L i v e___G i r l s
|________________________
chance of procreating based on age
You probably know now that you could have fixed that virtual problem in a day or two of rework. Just add methods and call them instead. I have a hole bunch of code that is programmed in an object oriented style, except I just didn't use the actual object oriented constructs to write it.
Forget realistic goals. Inexperience doesn't allow a person to know what those are anyways; and besides, unrealistic goals are the most fun to achieve.
I would just like to point out that this memory randomization security technique can still be applied in any event. I would also like to point out that the memory randomization technique is easily worked around by real hackers. I'm not saying that it is a bad technique, just that it will soon enough be ineffective.
Good points here.
I think that more people are understanding the idea that technology can improve beyond what we can currently invision. To be fair though, with the rate that technology is improving, people are invisioning crazier and wilder things. Some of them probably won't happen.
Look at the ideas we had about outer space from old TV shows and movies. Some of it was just crazy. Some of it has happened already. And some of it won't happen for a very long time yet. In 80 years I hope to watch a Battlestar Galactica re-run and laugh at the small size of that BattleStar... but we probably won't have a Battle Star for another millenium or two... so that's just crazy on my part.
So, how do you avoid the monthly mandatory "update" reboot? I can see how you might not bother with patches, given how poorly they work.
I typically patch the living crap out of the machine whenever I install the OS in the first place.
Then I follow good practices. Turn off services that I never use. Run the system behind a hardware firewall. Don't install stuff that tends to be buggier than hell. Don't click on stupid stuff while browsing the web, or reading email.
I review each new patch. Sometimes I don't install them. Sometimes you can just get away without a reboot, by restarting or unloading a particular service. Even still you can get by for several months without worrying about patches, if you've got the machine in a great state when you start out.
To, be honest, the same ideas have worked for me for Linux too, given that I start with a superb distro and recompile the kernel right away.
A UPS power supply (battery backup) also helps keep the machine a little more healthy. Hardware seems to fail pretty often in server environments (too Hot), so get redundant and/or high quality hardware if you can afford it.
I'd just like to add that the OS in Windows is tightly coupled between the lower and upper rings for reasons of efficiency and speed.
It was likely a correct decision to use that tightly coupled design in the past, and likely incorrect now as the speed difference is negligable now. Time will tell.
By the way, streamlining a process like that is (very) hard. I look forward to the day where it is a reality though.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks replying inline to sound like you know something important.
The parents posts were valid points, and you truly added nothing to them.
The sad truth though is that you both miss the point about the article being directed towards taking over the desktop. Not the server domain -- which is already fine for people like you.
Let take a look at that though, shall we...
The backend mail system and file security system should be interchangable. A good admin can make that happen if they work at it enough on Linux. A mediocre (read cheaper labor) admin can do the same task on Windows.
Windows support of user management is very good. Meaning it is well integrated across the filesystem, Operating system API, and user mode applications. (Not excellent) ... but at least it doesn't suck as bad as sudo, and has a GUI for the administrator. (I define GUI as something that is not a terribly designed after thought. It also has to be the same across a variety of installations... which by the way sudo is not even available out of the box across varying installs of different distros)
Good point, and beyond that Windows has already reached the critical mass for this generation too, and so will stay on top through the next generation. It's really already too late for Linux to supplant them in the next two years.
... why ... because what about the rest of the applications ... they're not all free... yet! And, when they are free, that means no more money is coming into anything except hardware. And just a reminder here that hardware has been a losing proposition for quite a long time now.
The reason companies don't throw away money on a market that doesn't exist, is because that would be really stupid. The reason that people don't want to pay money for something that doesn't work, is because that would be really stupid too.
To be honest though, I think Linux should allow and even embrace binary drivers... and binary only applications. Companies want to make money. If Linux wants the desktop, then make it easier for companies make money on the platform. (As opposed to implying that those companies are capitilistic bastards for wanting to make money.)
I'm a developer and a business man, and I won't put a dollar towards this stupidity until I see a shift in the community that allows me to make money on it. And, I mean any money at all. Borland tried it and failed. Cray and SGI tried it and failed. Why. Linux geeks/users/whatever don't like to pay 1 penny for software.
No one is going to ship Linux for any reason other than it is free, and they know that this will backfire
So, for now I develop for cross platform and keep my code released only on windows. Because, anything else is currently just dumb from a practical point of view.
Thanks, and I welcome opposing points of view.
Please be polite though. I do not intend to be flamebait or a troll.
My question is...
Does anyone have a laptop/tablet that can last for 4 to 6 hours on a battery. I'm sick of 5 minute battery life, and would be willing to use a 300mhz laptop if I could use it to read on for 4 or 5 hours.
As much as I agree, I have to point out that you are glossing over the lack of acheivements by desktop environment makers in general.
Let's face it... over the last 10..15 years there has been almost no marked improvement in User Interface design across free and proprietary software. It has taken this long to make the GUI as useful as the cmd line used to be. My hope is that 10 years from now user interface design will begin to truly include other aspects of interfacing with our hardware and software.
ie.) speech, sound and other kinestetic devices are needed.
And, before some of you jump on this and say "Hey moron, look at this invariably incorrect link where what you talk about already exists." I ask that you only point out that link if it is not a crappy junk toy that doesn't work very well. (Dragon Naturally speaking, and crummy little keyboard knockoffs -- I'm talking about you.)
Here is the unfortunate part. Basically as that shift in design occurs, everyone starts to ignore the GUI model (in favor of the new paradigm) which will just then become usable from a highly productive standpoint.
Again, we will basically be set back around a decade, while we try to work out the new paradigm.
Open source, closed source, I don't care... both will emulate a major design improvement anyways. Its a big plagarism fest on both sides of the fence.
But.. open source allows for this evolution to occur quickly and unhindered by the baggage of the previous paradigm. (Open source developers typically don't care much about backwards compatibility -- just use the old code if that is what you need)
Personally, I'll be glad for the shift forward that a new paradigm will bring. I'm just saddened to read complaints about how bad the current state of affairs are -- especially when it is not paired with people calling out for paradigm shifts that could truly make a large impact on the overall user experience.
Streaming text can and often is faster than streaming binary files from disk. You might find this surprising. I did too. If you are streaming over a network, then god help us all, but I'll give you that it would be a ton slower to stream text as opposed to binary over a network.
Perhaps you are still using C or Pascal though -- where you can actually stream binary "records" from file directly into the data type. (I know that c approaches that problem differently, but it is still fast, so its the same for my purpose.) Text, and binary both still need to be loaded and parsed (except with c), and maybe your method calls stream directly to memory. I don't know. Nowadays we like this thing called portability.
By the way, I don't have any problem with my load times. Loading happens basically immediately for me. Perhaps I'm using optimizations that you haven't thought of, but I doubt it. More likely, it is that you are making incorrect assumptions.
Every 10 years or so, this estimate basically doubles. If it holds this time for more than 10 years, then I'll be impressed.
hmm, that's interesting...
I hadn't thought about it outside the sphere of software development.
But, I can now see some interesting corelations there.
Thanks for pointing that out to me.
Just for the record... It works great as the format in my 3d engine. And I'm not an idiot.
By the way, anyone who loads files in a 3d engine past the initialization load time of the project might be making a bad mistake.
It should be pointed out that it doesn't matter much what format you use in the long run, and also that there are various good reasons to make different choices along the way.
Space is less of a concern now, and will be less of a concern as time goes on. And if this is not true in a given situation, text can be easily compressed. Reading in the xml format is fast and getting faster, so load times are going down. The format easily accomidates extensions. The format includes a great number of well thought out concepts that makes it easier to work with.
One other thing to point out is that, just because the original developers of the format were shortsighted in its application does not necessarily mean that other very useful applications are not available.
The C programming language is a good example of that.
Not true. This is the mass media invoking its opinion on you so that you will believe anything. Indeed there are real facts and evidence that strongly support various viewpoints. Sometimes the evidence helps to completely eliminate the stupidest ideas entirely.
It is true that there is little evidence from the past. However, it is still meaningful evidence and useful. For example modern genetics research helps scientists to know how animals have evolved and allows us to see which animals have a common ancestor.
Before this revelation, predictions (about common ancestors for example) were made due to massive amounts of evidence. Now we have emperical data to make the result difinitive.
Actually not. There hasn't been enough time for humanity to accomplish that. And if I were wrong about that, then there would be evidence of it. Metal work, stone work, plastic, silicon or any other refined material at all. So far nothing except clay... and so far we have found 65 million year old fossils. So ... chance of this multiple epoch scenario you speak of ... 1.0 * 10^-10000000 percent. To be fair, the chance that we have lost useful technology over the years is %100.
Actually, the evidence points to a common ancestor. And yes there is a mountain of evidence supporting it.
The aluminum super structures and the piles of iron dust, perhaps stainless steel, and burried glass. Cement with rebar in it... (burried of course). Giant stone monuments, and buildings constructed out of 6 foot concrete walls. The aluminum blocks from cars. Underground subway systems. Insulated wiring.
This is only true if we indeed came from another planet. But the evidence is strongly against that. The evidence shows that we evolved here.
This is a common theological misconception about the
Welcome to the land of software development idiocy.
This is where you have a bunch of people on one side of the fence yelling that there is perfectly viable bussiness reasons to adopt open source... and on the other side of the fence you have even more people that wouldn't pay for surgery that could save their own life. (Since practically no one pays for anything open source, no one really makes much money from it.)
Then you get people that start out with open source projects, and then turn the project into a commercial venture... thereby ticking off everyone that helped for free because they wanted a free solution. I speak from experience here. I've been ticked off on occasion, after helping with a project that was then turned into a closed source program and sold as the main product for a company. What's that I hear??? Oh... You should sue... Give me a break. That would cost more money than I would get back, and with that, we've now reached the full circle of stupidity here.
By the way... I'm not angry or bitter about this... It happened a few years ago now. I'm just trying to make a point about the sometimes strange dynamics of large groups of people working on a software project. If you change a couple of minor details then you can easily apply the same kinds of arguments to closed source software too.
Oh, my hand! How will I cash all my welfare checks now??? Guess I'll just have to sue Nintendo instead.
The same was true from 16 to 32 bit. Basically, software has to take advantage of a relatively minor increase in technology for you to notice the difference. It will be awhile before that happens.
No need to get back in time, or wait for new games. If you like the old ones, they are still out there. Go ahead and buy them.
New games need to look good. (Remember, Just as many of the old games suffered from poor gameplay too!)
You would not have wanted text based games on your nintendo.
3d is plain better than 2d.
Personally though, I like the old games, and I buy them still. I don't think that there are enough people out there like me to justify a game shop betting the company on a 2d scroller though.
Please, No! The hilarity of your juvenile humour makes me smirk and almost want to chuckle.
I'm kind of split on what my answers would have been, and I have both novell and microsoft operating systems.
I'm curious why I did not get to take the survey... Was it a stealth ninja survey delivered with a dart through a quickly closing door, and returned by another ninja courier service?
Probably varies from College to College. I've learned these things too, but on my own with college text books. So, I'm sure that they must be trying to teach it in college.
Yes, you're right.
Live Girls vs Advanced Circuit Design and the aroma of solder.
|
| Circuit Design
|
| R e a l___L i v e___G i r l s
|________________________
chance of procreating based on age
You probably know now that you could have fixed that virtual problem in a day or two of rework. Just add methods and call them instead. I have a hole bunch of code that is programmed in an object oriented style, except I just didn't use the actual object oriented constructs to write it.
Forget realistic goals. Inexperience doesn't allow a person to know what those are anyways; and besides, unrealistic goals are the most fun to achieve.
I would just like to point out that this memory randomization security technique can still be applied in any event. I would also like to point out that the memory randomization technique is easily worked around by real hackers. I'm not saying that it is a bad technique, just that it will soon enough be ineffective.
Good points here.
I think that more people are understanding the idea that technology can improve beyond what we can currently invision. To be fair though, with the rate that technology is improving, people are invisioning crazier and wilder things. Some of them probably won't happen.
Look at the ideas we had about outer space from old TV shows and movies. Some of it was just crazy. Some of it has happened already. And some of it won't happen for a very long time yet. In 80 years I hope to watch a Battlestar Galactica re-run and laugh at the small size of that BattleStar... but we probably won't have a Battle Star for another millenium or two... so that's just crazy on my part.
The point was that (almost) nobody that matters even knows that Open Office is an alternative.
So, how do you avoid the monthly mandatory "update" reboot? I can see how you might not bother with patches, given how poorly they work.
I typically patch the living crap out of the machine whenever I install the OS in the first place.
Then I follow good practices. Turn off services that I never use. Run the system behind a hardware firewall. Don't install stuff that tends to be buggier than hell. Don't click on stupid stuff while browsing the web, or reading email.
I review each new patch. Sometimes I don't install them. Sometimes you can just get away without a reboot, by restarting or unloading a particular service. Even still you can get by for several months without worrying about patches, if you've got the machine in a great state when you start out.
To, be honest, the same ideas have worked for me for Linux too, given that I start with a superb distro and recompile the kernel right away.
A UPS power supply (battery backup) also helps keep the machine a little more healthy. Hardware seems to fail pretty often in server environments (too Hot), so get redundant and/or high quality hardware if you can afford it.
First, do you have a link to this EFI tech?
I'd just like to add that the OS in Windows is tightly coupled between the lower and upper rings for reasons of efficiency and speed.
It was likely a correct decision to use that tightly coupled design in the past, and likely incorrect now as the speed difference is negligable now. Time will tell.
By the way, streamlining a process like that is (very) hard. I look forward to the day where it is a reality though.