Off topic: Rosanne Rosannadanna was the one that complained about finding a toenail in the hamburger. Emily Litella had the hearing/comprehension problem.
Well... in order for it to hit earth, you'd have to hypothetically change it's origin or velocity, in which case you could hypothetically have it hit *anywhere* on Earth.
I believe that the Wayback machine started as "Alexa" - a browser enhancement tool for MSIE and netscape that predated (and probably gave the idea for) "find similar" buttons on modern web browsers. Alexa was a very good tool, and I used it. One of it's features was the cache which did archive items - that in itself has turned into Alexa's killer app. With spidering and the alexa clients still out there, I'm not surprized if they have stuff from 1998.
As for "opting out" - legally, you don't have a leg to stand on. Wayback does acknowledge robots.txt, and you published the information publically. Wayback provides a service - the ability to archive the internet, that would not work under "opt-in" policy, the "opt-in" is neither intrusive, nor is it illegal, nor is it a violation of copyright. Implied in the fact that the material was published online is the fact that in order to access that information, copies of it would be downloaded to multiple hard drives - otherwise the information would not have been accessable. Once on the hard drive, the physical bits and bytes become property of the user and can be accessed at any time. (while the content those bits and bytes translate into may remain yours, copyright wise.)
What the Wayback machine does is take the cache on the hard drive and makes it available. It makes no claims to ownership of the property, it provides opt-out mechanisms to the owners of the property, and it does not alter the content. In that respect, I cannot possibly see any violations of copyright law. Yes, through advertising they may make a profit on other people's work, but if a specific complainant wishes to have his work no longer indexed by Alexa or Wayback, the information is removable. Lack of complaint becomes implied consent, until such time as one complains.
The similarities to SPAM are not useful in the least. Spam is unsolicited advertising that forces the recipient to bear the burden of the reciept of the message. Wayback's "victims" have recourse and are not bothered or harrassed. Furthermore, Spam provides (usually) no service - unlike Wayback, which provides an archive.
Yes, there is concern for copyright - Wayback does redistribute material that perhaps the origional owner did not want redistributed. But the "opt-out" mechanism doesn't impede on the operation of the database nor the owner of the origional content further than is required for routine maintainance... Cease & Desist letters are neither nessessary nor effective, since Wayback has the recourse of saying that non-authorized material may have been removed at any time.
I have found Wayback invaluable. In high school, I took alot of web design jobs on the cheap that now look good on a resume. Since many of those companies have gone under, however, I thought these items were lost permenantly - Wayback has been a savior.
Yes, but at least Mozilla had the decency to be honest about releasing beta software and didn't charge half a grand for it.
I have no problem with service packs, but when the program in question is based on an existing product that has been in development since the mid-eighties, when the product is expensive, and when the product has this many serious errors in it, I question the viability of an early release, no matter how badly Apple "needed" it. Had Apple spent some time on adding two key features to AppleWorks, (Spellcheck as you type and widow/orphan protection) there would be little need for Microsoft to develop an Office app for X.
As a guy who used Word v.X often (and finds that it's full of bugs and is the most likely to "unexpectedly quit") the news that there is a service pack is way, way, overdue. An Appleworks 7.0 announcement, however, or completion of the OpenOffice.org port to MacOSX would be much more welcome.
Yes, no one writes code perfectly the first time - no one but Microsoft would have the audacity to charge for it.
Didn't we have this discussion? The iMac has been out a while... some annoyances, some convieniences. Same with any innovation - the remote control means you don't walk across the room anymore to change the channel, but it's also so easy to lose...
I use a mac myself but don't think that this is the smartest of options. First off, the rack-mountable servers start at more than twice what the Sun box is costing. Secondly, I've found that if a place is nervous about Unix, they typically are nervous about Macintosh as well. Thirdly, I think that this would actually *increase* the boss's fears - it's possible to get people who are Linux/Unix trained, but how many people out there really know how to sysadmin a Mac server?
Certainly an Apple-Server would do the job, but in this situation it's overkill and under-utilized.
Re:How to work efficiently with MacOS X?
on
KDE Ported to Mac OS X
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Let me ask this honestly: how can someone work in an organized fashion with the MacOS X style of managing windows?
Bothered me too. Until, you realize that you can focus on one application by holding down the open-apple & option keys and clicking on an application in the dock. That hides all other applications - letting you work with just one. The exception to this, of course, is XDarwin, but if you install Gnome, or, I guess, KDE (I don't have time to let the stuff compile, dammit, and the binaries aren't working) they come with window managers for Xwindows apps.
So, this is an honest question: how are you guys productive with MacOS X? Is there any way to keep various applications organized?
Also, today I tried installing Fink and was amazed at first, but after only two or three hours of using it, the fact that XDarwin is much slower than XFree86 under Linux (on the same notebook) makes me also suspect that I may not be using the programs correctly. I can't believe how slow it is. I would not even dare to run KDE on MacOS X (the topic of this story).
I haven't gotten linux beyond a rudimentary command line to work on my mac yet (I've tried) so I can't answer your question that well, but running XDarwin in full-screen rather than rootless mode seems to work.
As the only Mac user in a meeting of Linux users, I had a chance to talk to Raymond when he spoke at our school. I asked him what he thought about Darwin & OSX, and he kinda skirted the question - "Well, it sure looks pretty" was his response. My impression is that he didn't think that MacOSX/Darwin was relevant to his topic - Open Source advocacy. Grain of salt though, if this is what he means by keeping in contact with the Mac community, I would have appreciated a longer answer. Still, in general a nice guy.
The reality is 99% of security is up to the user. [slashdot.org] A properly configured Windows machine is pretty much as secure as a properly configured Mac, or Linux machine, or [insert your OS here].
Agreed & seconded. Still, maing the windows machine as secure as my mac would require me to somehow get rid of MSIE as the windows shell... while I'm at it, I suppose I'd have to get rid of Outlook Exp. as the default email app - oh, and I suppose I'd need to...
The problem is that virii proliferate, and every unsecure system helps spread the virus. Most home users don't give a darn about security or virii, and part of the reason Macs have a reputation for security is that you don't need to make tons of changes to the system to have a reasonably secure system. This is true of Linux as well. Most people just want to type emails and surf the web - they can't really be bothered to "do" security.
I seriously doubt these findings. Yes, any computer can be infected with a virus - and Macs of either platform are no exception.
The difference is accessability. Microsoft has several exploitable problems in it's OS, not the least including operating system integration with it's web browser, a default email client which can execute items by previewing them, and a word processor that can transmit virii via documents. Solutions to the problems seem to be non-existant or overkill. (Write-Protecting Normal.dot, and the new Outlook rejecting certain files based on attachment)
The first line of virus defense, however, is always the user - and unfortunately, most users are unaware of even when they have a virus. My cousin, who had a laptop, had icons moving all around the screen on her, and didn't know that she had a virus until I told her. Even then, she has not bought and installed antivirus software, although I tell her of the seriousness of the problem.
Sorry to hear it, but there doesn't actually seem to be any MacOSX support - I can't find a download. And I'm not technically inclined enough to compile.
However, if it got ported over, I'd seriously consider throwing my graph-artist skills over to the program.
Brian.
I don't see a problem with paying $5-10/mo for ad-free stations. But we should choose which stations to watch. I'd probably buy Fox News (don't laugh, the coverage is good and I like Sean Hannity,) Comedy Central, SciFi *maybe*, History Channel, and HBO. Channels with better quality programming (or a broader consumer base) could garner higher costs. Advertising revenue doesn't work because there is little incentive to create quality programming. Look at Comedy Central. They had a few good shows, alot of good BBC imports, but most of the programming consists of older, b-grade (at best) movies.
There is a backlash to this. "Specialty programming" would probably not have the same amount of consumer base as the other channels, and therefore charge more. NBC (with general programming which can be time-shifted with TiVo) could garner more viewers than Comedy Central, simply because not everyone likes Comedy.
Personally, I think that people unhappy with time-shifting devices should rethink the strategy. Prime Time value perhaps goes down (unless you do the smart thing and go back to the 1950s and produce Live programming) but the 3:00AM spot becomes much more valuable.
Let's face it, time-shifting is essentially TV-on-demand, with the airwaves as existing forming the medium for the technology.
But if HBO, Encore, etc. can somehow produce multiple ad-free channels for a profit, it's time to rethink the old revenue model for one which will adapt more. In the meantime, I'm going to wish that I had BBC America...
First, most schools are eligible for academic pricing & buy-in-bulk contracts. Second, a full version of XP costs $200 I think... (no link no price check, just guessing, I'm at work...) also, a school computer also needs an office application (Office ships in at $500)... Yeah, a third to a half sounds about right.
Try moving to Mozilla RC2 - that has fixed a couple bugs. I haven't yet had a crash with Mozilla, but I avoided the nightly builds, for the most part, and stuck with the trunks.
Saying that IE is the better browser in terms of compatability is true - it got that way by forcing it's own standards on web developers, not conforming to the web standards already in place - which is what Mozilla does, and does well. Sorry to say it, but problems like this are not the fault of Mozilla porters - it's the fault of web designers who fail to use the proper standards.
Hmm... Let me tell you what I think would be the best thing. Call everyone in for a meeting if you have that kind of swing. Entice everyone by making it a barbeque or something. Explain that you've been reading on the news that Microsoft and the BSA are doing some pretty nasty stuff that forces people to upgrade the computers, and that you're thinking about getting away from Office & Windows to something else, to save the company money.
By all means, start slow - and don't move on to the next step until people are ready. Go right up to them and ask: "Are you ready to switch?"
Step 1: OpenOffice.org and Mozilla can be installed on the Windows machines. Explain that even though Office will still be on the computer for the time being, encourage people to move to OO.org. & Mozilla. Get feedback. Feedback feedback feedback! Ask "You think if you had to, you could move away from MSOffice completely?" Remember that these people are not here to do your job of efficiency, they're there to do something completely different, and learning a new OS (or even a new office app) is something that gets in thier way.
Step 2: Install dual-boot systems onto the computers, Linux & Windows, to those who are say they're ready to try the new Always allow a way 'back out'. Remember, the last thing you want is for someone to panic because they can't find out how to do something. And *always* ask permission before you change anything on a user's computers. If you can't ask permission, at least give notification. - lots of it.
Step 3: By now, you can see how well the migration is going - who will be an 'early adopter' and who won't, what people need, etc. If you have the budget for it, hire someone temporarily (Heck, it can even be a college kid, under the table) to come in a few hours a week and help with computer problems dealing with migration. Try to make it worth their while for the late-adopters to upgrade.
At this time, you're going to get a couple of problems. "I can't figure out how to do X" "What program do I use for Y?" "Why can't I use this floppy disk at home?" - actually, if your budget can afford it, offer to install Linux partitions on home computers if they bring them in - so they can take the work home if they wish.
Step 4: Set a "deadline" for a complete migration. Ask the end users when they think the deadline should be. Use that, then add a month - but stick to it. Keep people updated, also.
Step 5: Complete the transition. The deadline has passed, all the software is in place. Tell people about a week in advance to back up any important documents from their old windows partitions on the company server, then wipe the partitions and reformat them for Linux.
Remember, keep people appraised as to why you're doing this - you're not trying to move them onto a new system because you want them to use Linux (from your letter, it seems that Windows has been 'good enough' for you all alonge) but because you can't afford to continue the upgrade cycle of MS Software and you're worried about saving the company money. - that is why the Windows partition has to go. To most people, that windows partition will be a safety blanket, a reassurance... that's why sticking to the deadline is the most important part.
The alternative, of course, is to get a bunch of Macs.
Brian.
With the caveat that I haven't seen EpII yet, I think that it comes down to a simple fact: Lucas is too excited about using digital toys to produce a vision than he is about the actual storyline and character development.
You had to admit, Episode I - and let's use this as a reference point - looked impressive, visually. The CGI was rendered in great detail - even Jar Jar Bink's movements seemed both organic and fluid. The problem is that he spent too much time with A) the Anakin subplot - and that's what it should have been - a subplot, B) Jar Jar Binks's antics.
Essentially, he confused the comic relief with the main story.
Now, say what you want about Lucas, but this is not Lucas. Star Wars (I will never call it Episode 4) had humor in it, but it was mostly from character *interaction* and exploitation of circumstance. You have the rough mercenary Han Solo dealing with the strong and politically motivated Leia... with each one in a contest to become the alpha male. You also have the exchanges between Threepio and Artoo, (and did anyone notice that it's Artoo, the one that communicated in blips and beeps, who plays the straightman in the comic venture?) You also have humor of circumstance - "I think i just blasted it."
Even so, "Star Wars" characters can be very serious when the plot calls for it.
This is where Lucas should have been focusing humor. Instead, he misapplies it - Jar Jar & Anakin, the pod racer announcer, etc.
Instead, what does he do well. Well, from the trailers and the origional, I think he's doing the fight scenes well, and I think he's also showing the setting. Unfortunately, these aren't Lucas's hallmarks - they're the hallmarks of, perhaps Jackie Chan and Speilberg directly.
Then again, maybe he *has* to emulate other directors. Remember, these plots weren't just developed to suit the fans - they were written before "Star Wars" was released. Let's face facts, Lucas developed the middle trilogy first because he thought it would be the best of the 3... No matter what, then, we should expect the plot of the prequels to be of an inferior quality. Lucas can only try to make this deficiency up by promising eye candy - perhaps why he is so adamant about having the digital projectors installed.
That said, I'm sure that those who go to see Episode II for the lightsaber fights and the stunning CGI planet-scapes will enjoy it. But for those looking for plot, it's time to swallow back that taste of bile in your throat once again.
Brian.
To Quote: Who knew alien technology was compatibile with a Mac laptop?
"Let's see, I can run X-windows apps, Mac apps, Mac Classic apps, Windows apps in virtual PC, and Virtual EvilAlienOS. Now, if someone will just port Half-life..."
As an OSX user, I'll submit that most users aren't going to use the terminal. For me though, sudoing root makes sense, mostly because if, god forbid, my HD is wiped out, backing up my ~ directory means all my stuff is in the right place when I reinstall.
Brian.
Slashdot Mirror
Off topic: Rosanne Rosannadanna was the one that complained about finding a toenail in the hamburger. Emily Litella had the hearing/comprehension problem.
Brian.
Well, uh... since it missed Earth...
*thinks really deeply*
Well... in order for it to hit earth, you'd have to hypothetically change it's origin or velocity, in which case you could hypothetically have it hit *anywhere* on Earth.
I believe that the Wayback machine started as "Alexa" - a browser enhancement tool for MSIE and netscape that predated (and probably gave the idea for) "find similar" buttons on modern web browsers. Alexa was a very good tool, and I used it. One of it's features was the cache which did archive items - that in itself has turned into Alexa's killer app. With spidering and the alexa clients still out there, I'm not surprized if they have stuff from 1998.
As for "opting out" - legally, you don't have a leg to stand on. Wayback does acknowledge robots.txt, and you published the information publically. Wayback provides a service - the ability to archive the internet, that would not work under "opt-in" policy, the "opt-in" is neither intrusive, nor is it illegal, nor is it a violation of copyright. Implied in the fact that the material was published online is the fact that in order to access that information, copies of it would be downloaded to multiple hard drives - otherwise the information would not have been accessable. Once on the hard drive, the physical bits and bytes become property of the user and can be accessed at any time. (while the content those bits and bytes translate into may remain yours, copyright wise.)
What the Wayback machine does is take the cache on the hard drive and makes it available. It makes no claims to ownership of the property, it provides opt-out mechanisms to the owners of the property, and it does not alter the content. In that respect, I cannot possibly see any violations of copyright law. Yes, through advertising they may make a profit on other people's work, but if a specific complainant wishes to have his work no longer indexed by Alexa or Wayback, the information is removable. Lack of complaint becomes implied consent, until such time as one complains.
The similarities to SPAM are not useful in the least. Spam is unsolicited advertising that forces the recipient to bear the burden of the reciept of the message. Wayback's "victims" have recourse and are not bothered or harrassed. Furthermore, Spam provides (usually) no service - unlike Wayback, which provides an archive.
Yes, there is concern for copyright - Wayback does redistribute material that perhaps the origional owner did not want redistributed. But the "opt-out" mechanism doesn't impede on the operation of the database nor the owner of the origional content further than is required for routine maintainance... Cease & Desist letters are neither nessessary nor effective, since Wayback has the recourse of saying that non-authorized material may have been removed at any time.
I have found Wayback invaluable. In high school, I took alot of web design jobs on the cheap that now look good on a resume. Since many of those companies have gone under, however, I thought these items were lost permenantly - Wayback has been a savior.
Brian.
Offtopic and a bit trollish, but I always liked this movie...
Yes, but at least Mozilla had the decency to be honest about releasing beta software and didn't charge half a grand for it.
I have no problem with service packs, but when the program in question is based on an existing product that has been in development since the mid-eighties, when the product is expensive, and when the product has this many serious errors in it, I question the viability of an early release, no matter how badly Apple "needed" it. Had Apple spent some time on adding two key features to AppleWorks, (Spellcheck as you type and widow/orphan protection) there would be little need for Microsoft to develop an Office app for X.
As a guy who used Word v.X often (and finds that it's full of bugs and is the most likely to "unexpectedly quit") the news that there is a service pack is way, way, overdue. An Appleworks 7.0 announcement, however, or completion of the OpenOffice.org port to MacOSX would be much more welcome.
Yes, no one writes code perfectly the first time - no one but Microsoft would have the audacity to charge for it.
Want sheep? er.. that's not my department but you can probably find that on KaZaa too.
Well, they ARE from New Zealand.
Napster is gone, legally they're caught, but lets face it, P2P is quickly becoming a killer app, and Napster made that possible. Brian.
Didn't we have this discussion? The iMac has been out a while... some annoyances, some convieniences. Same with any innovation - the remote control means you don't walk across the room anymore to change the channel, but it's also so easy to lose...
I use a mac myself but don't think that this is the smartest of options. First off, the rack-mountable servers start at more than twice what the Sun box is costing. Secondly, I've found that if a place is nervous about Unix, they typically are nervous about Macintosh as well. Thirdly, I think that this would actually *increase* the boss's fears - it's possible to get people who are Linux/Unix trained, but how many people out there really know how to sysadmin a Mac server?
Certainly an Apple-Server would do the job, but in this situation it's overkill and under-utilized.
Let me ask this honestly: how can someone work in an organized fashion with the MacOS X style of managing windows?
Bothered me too. Until, you realize that you can focus on one application by holding down the open-apple & option keys and clicking on an application in the dock. That hides all other applications - letting you work with just one. The exception to this, of course, is XDarwin, but if you install Gnome, or, I guess, KDE (I don't have time to let the stuff compile, dammit, and the binaries aren't working) they come with window managers for Xwindows apps.
So, this is an honest question: how are you guys productive with MacOS X? Is there any way to keep various applications organized?
Snax helps.
Also, today I tried installing Fink and was amazed at first, but after only two or three hours of using it, the fact that XDarwin is much slower than XFree86 under Linux (on the same notebook) makes me also suspect that I may not be using the programs correctly. I can't believe how slow it is. I would not even dare to run KDE on MacOS X (the topic of this story).
I haven't gotten linux beyond a rudimentary command line to work on my mac yet (I've tried) so I can't answer your question that well, but running XDarwin in full-screen rather than rootless mode seems to work.
As the only Mac user in a meeting of Linux users, I had a chance to talk to Raymond when he spoke at our school. I asked him what he thought about Darwin & OSX, and he kinda skirted the question - "Well, it sure looks pretty" was his response. My impression is that he didn't think that MacOSX/Darwin was relevant to his topic - Open Source advocacy. Grain of salt though, if this is what he means by keeping in contact with the Mac community, I would have appreciated a longer answer. Still, in general a nice guy.
Brian.
The reality is 99% of security is up to the user. [slashdot.org] A properly configured Windows machine is pretty much as secure as a properly configured Mac, or Linux machine, or [insert your OS here].
Agreed & seconded. Still, maing the windows machine as secure as my mac would require me to somehow get rid of MSIE as the windows shell... while I'm at it, I suppose I'd have to get rid of Outlook Exp. as the default email app - oh, and I suppose I'd need to...
The problem is that virii proliferate, and every unsecure system helps spread the virus. Most home users don't give a darn about security or virii, and part of the reason Macs have a reputation for security is that you don't need to make tons of changes to the system to have a reasonably secure system. This is true of Linux as well. Most people just want to type emails and surf the web - they can't really be bothered to "do" security.
Brian.
I seriously doubt these findings. Yes, any computer can be infected with a virus - and Macs of either platform are no exception.
The difference is accessability. Microsoft has several exploitable problems in it's OS, not the least including operating system integration with it's web browser, a default email client which can execute items by previewing them, and a word processor that can transmit virii via documents. Solutions to the problems seem to be non-existant or overkill. (Write-Protecting Normal.dot, and the new Outlook rejecting certain files based on attachment)
The first line of virus defense, however, is always the user - and unfortunately, most users are unaware of even when they have a virus. My cousin, who had a laptop, had icons moving all around the screen on her, and didn't know that she had a virus until I told her. Even then, she has not bought and installed antivirus software, although I tell her of the seriousness of the problem.
Brian
Sorry to hear it, but there doesn't actually seem to be any MacOSX support - I can't find a download. And I'm not technically inclined enough to compile.
However, if it got ported over, I'd seriously consider throwing my graph-artist skills over to the program. Brian.
I don't see a problem with paying $5-10/mo for ad-free stations. But we should choose which stations to watch. I'd probably buy Fox News (don't laugh, the coverage is good and I like Sean Hannity,) Comedy Central, SciFi *maybe*, History Channel, and HBO. Channels with better quality programming (or a broader consumer base) could garner higher costs. Advertising revenue doesn't work because there is little incentive to create quality programming. Look at Comedy Central. They had a few good shows, alot of good BBC imports, but most of the programming consists of older, b-grade (at best) movies.
There is a backlash to this. "Specialty programming" would probably not have the same amount of consumer base as the other channels, and therefore charge more. NBC (with general programming which can be time-shifted with TiVo) could garner more viewers than Comedy Central, simply because not everyone likes Comedy.
Personally, I think that people unhappy with time-shifting devices should rethink the strategy. Prime Time value perhaps goes down (unless you do the smart thing and go back to the 1950s and produce Live programming) but the 3:00AM spot becomes much more valuable.
Let's face it, time-shifting is essentially TV-on-demand, with the airwaves as existing forming the medium for the technology.
But if HBO, Encore, etc. can somehow produce multiple ad-free channels for a profit, it's time to rethink the old revenue model for one which will adapt more. In the meantime, I'm going to wish that I had BBC America...
First, most schools are eligible for academic pricing & buy-in-bulk contracts. Second, a full version of XP costs $200 I think... (no link no price check, just guessing, I'm at work...) also, a school computer also needs an office application (Office ships in at $500)... Yeah, a third to a half sounds about right.
Unfortunately, the MacOS is likely to remain proprietary - the Mac simply wouldn't find a great market out there without the support of vendors.
There *is* Darwin for Intel - but since you can't actually run the Aqua interface, it's more like "yet-another-freeBSD" for the PC.
Why not try Linux? They're doing wonderful things with that nowadays.
Brian.
Try moving to Mozilla RC2 - that has fixed a couple bugs. I haven't yet had a crash with Mozilla, but I avoided the nightly builds, for the most part, and stuck with the trunks.
Saying that IE is the better browser in terms of compatability is true - it got that way by forcing it's own standards on web developers, not conforming to the web standards already in place - which is what Mozilla does, and does well. Sorry to say it, but problems like this are not the fault of Mozilla porters - it's the fault of web designers who fail to use the proper standards.
Hmm.
I really should remember to put HTML code in & to use Preview.
Hmm... Let me tell you what I think would be the best thing. Call everyone in for a meeting if you have that kind of swing. Entice everyone by making it a barbeque or something. Explain that you've been reading on the news that Microsoft and the BSA are doing some pretty nasty stuff that forces people to upgrade the computers, and that you're thinking about getting away from Office & Windows to something else, to save the company money.
By all means, start slow - and don't move on to the next step until people are ready. Go right up to them and ask: "Are you ready to switch?" Step 1: OpenOffice.org and Mozilla can be installed on the Windows machines. Explain that even though Office will still be on the computer for the time being, encourage people to move to OO.org. & Mozilla. Get feedback. Feedback feedback feedback! Ask "You think if you had to, you could move away from MSOffice completely?" Remember that these people are not here to do your job of efficiency, they're there to do something completely different, and learning a new OS (or even a new office app) is something that gets in thier way. Step 2: Install dual-boot systems onto the computers, Linux & Windows, to those who are say they're ready to try the new Always allow a way 'back out'. Remember, the last thing you want is for someone to panic because they can't find out how to do something. And *always* ask permission before you change anything on a user's computers. If you can't ask permission, at least give notification. - lots of it. Step 3: By now, you can see how well the migration is going - who will be an 'early adopter' and who won't, what people need, etc. If you have the budget for it, hire someone temporarily (Heck, it can even be a college kid, under the table) to come in a few hours a week and help with computer problems dealing with migration. Try to make it worth their while for the late-adopters to upgrade. At this time, you're going to get a couple of problems. "I can't figure out how to do X" "What program do I use for Y?" "Why can't I use this floppy disk at home?" - actually, if your budget can afford it, offer to install Linux partitions on home computers if they bring them in - so they can take the work home if they wish. Step 4: Set a "deadline" for a complete migration. Ask the end users when they think the deadline should be. Use that, then add a month - but stick to it. Keep people updated, also. Step 5: Complete the transition. The deadline has passed, all the software is in place. Tell people about a week in advance to back up any important documents from their old windows partitions on the company server, then wipe the partitions and reformat them for Linux. Remember, keep people appraised as to why you're doing this - you're not trying to move them onto a new system because you want them to use Linux (from your letter, it seems that Windows has been 'good enough' for you all alonge) but because you can't afford to continue the upgrade cycle of MS Software and you're worried about saving the company money. - that is why the Windows partition has to go. To most people, that windows partition will be a safety blanket, a reassurance... that's why sticking to the deadline is the most important part. The alternative, of course, is to get a bunch of Macs. Brian.
With the caveat that I haven't seen EpII yet, I think that it comes down to a simple fact: Lucas is too excited about using digital toys to produce a vision than he is about the actual storyline and character development. You had to admit, Episode I - and let's use this as a reference point - looked impressive, visually. The CGI was rendered in great detail - even Jar Jar Bink's movements seemed both organic and fluid. The problem is that he spent too much time with A) the Anakin subplot - and that's what it should have been - a subplot, B) Jar Jar Binks's antics. Essentially, he confused the comic relief with the main story. Now, say what you want about Lucas, but this is not Lucas. Star Wars (I will never call it Episode 4) had humor in it, but it was mostly from character *interaction* and exploitation of circumstance. You have the rough mercenary Han Solo dealing with the strong and politically motivated Leia... with each one in a contest to become the alpha male. You also have the exchanges between Threepio and Artoo, (and did anyone notice that it's Artoo, the one that communicated in blips and beeps, who plays the straightman in the comic venture?) You also have humor of circumstance - "I think i just blasted it." Even so, "Star Wars" characters can be very serious when the plot calls for it. This is where Lucas should have been focusing humor. Instead, he misapplies it - Jar Jar & Anakin, the pod racer announcer, etc. Instead, what does he do well. Well, from the trailers and the origional, I think he's doing the fight scenes well, and I think he's also showing the setting. Unfortunately, these aren't Lucas's hallmarks - they're the hallmarks of, perhaps Jackie Chan and Speilberg directly. Then again, maybe he *has* to emulate other directors. Remember, these plots weren't just developed to suit the fans - they were written before "Star Wars" was released. Let's face facts, Lucas developed the middle trilogy first because he thought it would be the best of the 3... No matter what, then, we should expect the plot of the prequels to be of an inferior quality. Lucas can only try to make this deficiency up by promising eye candy - perhaps why he is so adamant about having the digital projectors installed. That said, I'm sure that those who go to see Episode II for the lightsaber fights and the stunning CGI planet-scapes will enjoy it. But for those looking for plot, it's time to swallow back that taste of bile in your throat once again. Brian.
To Quote: Who knew alien technology was compatibile with a Mac laptop? "Let's see, I can run X-windows apps, Mac apps, Mac Classic apps, Windows apps in virtual PC, and Virtual EvilAlienOS. Now, if someone will just port Half-life..."
As an OSX user, I'll submit that most users aren't going to use the terminal. For me though, sudoing root makes sense, mostly because if, god forbid, my HD is wiped out, backing up my ~ directory means all my stuff is in the right place when I reinstall. Brian.