What are the plans of Samba client on Linux with regards to OS/2? Can we expect the ability to actually allow Linux (as a client OS) to access shares on an OS/2 file/print server on small networks/home networks?
There has been a lot of usability research concerning text printed on paper that indicates that serif fonts improve readibility, because the hooks at the ends of the fonts make words and sentences easier to follow. Has anything similar been done on the web? It seems to me that sans-serif fonts are easier to read on web sites because the low resolution of monitors (compared to paper, at any rate) make serif fonts harder to look at...
I'm a relatively bright guy with a learning disability. I've been trying to learn to use Linux for the PAST TWO YEARS... and I'm still, PAINFULLY, in the "newbie" category.
Why? Because while it might be worth taking the time to learn everything, that time DOES NOT EXIST for me.
By day, I am a technical writer who must devote his time to his job. By night, I have a wife, compose and distribute music, do a comic strip on the net, and write for another web magazine.
Recently I tried to use Linux as a Samba file/print server for my OS/2-Linux-Win98 machine. I eventually gave up, because while I was making progress, IT WAS TAKING TOO LONG and all of the other things in my life were suffering as a result.
Because I was trying to use the Linux file/print server ALSO as an internet gateway (so I could take out the modem on my client and save an IRQ) I couldn't connect to the net, couldn't publish my strip. I spent four days straight trying to configure this, tweak that -- my wife was pissed. And let's not forget exactly how painfully difficult it is to find the documentation you're looking for on how to configure Samba, then throw in the fact that it's written with the expectation that the reader already has some knowledge of networking (I didn't).
I had plenty of Linux people willing to give me advice, but none of them were right in front of me. It was all very frustrating, and I gave up because I was very, very far behind in the rest of my work and I had to get cracking.
I personally feel that Linux is an OS worth learning... but I only have so much time I can devote to it, and I can't afford to devote more. Until Linux can be presented in an "easier" format, or until I get significantly more free time, I'm afraid I'll be an eternal newbie.
And this is from someone whose primary job is technology based. I don't want a Doctor taking time to learn Linux that he or she should be using peforming a triple bypass or something like that. And I'm pretty sure someone who just wants to get their checking account balanced in time to do taxes won't want to spend a month getting up to speed on using Linux, either.
In other words, yes, it might be worth the time, but is the time THERE?
As I understand it, Corel is using WINE as a way to make porting windows applications a lot faster, so that someone already heavily invested in Windows software won't have to spend as much time creating a product from scratch if they want it also available for Linux.
Remember the Temple of Apshai? I miss that game... is it available anywhere? I remember waiting for what seemed like HOURS for that game to load up on the tape drive... and waiting an eternity for the asci characters to move the character through the dungeon... and making maps that never quite connected correctly... and getting killed by slimes...
*sigh*
That was the first great RPG game... waaay before Lord British.
Oh, and let's not forget those star trek sim games! What realism! And the Wumpus hunt!
The Commodore Pet was my first exposure to computers, too. I still think that computers with free-standing keyboards and monitors look funny...
I felt cheated when the C64 came out, b/c the whole thing was in the keyboard! I mean, where's the boxy metal and glass! The Pet felt like the control panel of a spaceship, or something! (Hey, I was eight, gimme a break).
1. Free speech is absolutely necessary 2. Pornography is absolutely necessary to further free speech because it promotes the awareness of sexuality
#2 has nothing to do with #1! Katz is trying to justify a moral or sociological stance (porn is good for society) by disguising it as a blow for free speech, and is painting people who disagree with that view as ENEMIES of free speech.
Luckily for him, it's easy to think of a few people who fit the role of the "bad guys." Just look for the people who are really interested in curtailing free speech, and you'll invariably find people who are against porn -- because it's an easy target. But the TRUTH of the matter is that his argument is a STRAW MAN... one has nothing to do with the other.
I agree that people are using anti-porn legislation to take away our civil liberties, and I agree that is WRONG. I OPPOSED the CDA and will OPPOSE any variants of the CDA. But that's not the point. I don't like people wrapping themselves up in the Bill of Rights to make a moral argument any more than I like people wrappign themsleves up in the Flag to make a moral argument.
I agree with you that people who say "I support free speech but we need to ban porn" are commiting doublespeak. I do think it's possible for someone to be for free speech and against porn, so long as they don't oppose it with legal means... I also think it's possible for people to like pornography and be right-wing fascist bastards.
And, for the record, it's quite possible for someone to be one of those repressed puritians that Katz likes to rag on and still be very active in defending someone else's civil liberties. Katz uses religious and moral belief as his whipping boy, and it's annoying. It's more annoying when he tries to pretend that it's all in the name of freedom of speech.
Perhaps there is also a "free speech anti-porn" contingency? Perhaps they're against porn but not to the extent that they're willing to do anything to curtail civil liberties?
Perhaps there's also a pro-porn, anti-free speech contingency? You'd be suprised. What I object to is the dilution of two separate stances -- free speech and pornography. One can say "I believe pornography is exploitative and immoral" without wanting to pass a law banning it. And one can work to convince people to abandon the porn industry without trying to change the laws to reflect this.
There are too many positions in this debate to have Katz draw a line in the sand and say "everyone standing over HERE is right and everyone standing over THERE is wrong." That is the tactic of all those politicians that Katz claims to dislike so much...
Katz claims that politicians are prudish, don't like sex, fear sex, consider sex immoral, whatever. I disagree: history has shown that politicians are some of the most sexually active people on the planet. The peccadillos of politicians are the stuff of legend.
The real issue here is that politicians take a sampling of social mores and exploit those mores as a way to stay elected. Most politicians don't give a damn about pornography on the internet -- unless they feel it'll get them elected. It has nothing to do with morality or prudishness, it has _everything_ to do with the accumulation of power.
Politicians will exploit the "sex card" in order to whip up hysteria and get themselves elected. They will exploit the "fear of terrorism card" in order to whip up hysteria, get themselves elected, and whittle away at our rights in order to increase the strength of their position.
None of this is particularly new.
What I absolutely DISAGREE with, however, is Katz' assertion that someone who speaks out against "pornography" is somehow diluting free speech. Free speech is free if and only if BOTH sides of the issue are heard.
In other words, if you only hear speech about how good sex is, how wonderful pornography is, how liberating it is, THAT IS NOT FREE SPEECH. If you only hear speech about how terrible sex is, how horrible pornography is, how exploitative it is, THAT IS NOT FREE SPEECH EITHER. Katz is confusing his particular moral stance (sexuality on the net is liberating) with free speech (which is an open exchange of ALL ideas, be they right or wrong).
I would hope Mr. Katz would use a bit more caution in the future. He has a tendency to paint everyone on the other side of his fence as reactionary idiots. Certainly many of them are, but such strong language tends to discourage a reasoned response from opponents -- thus discouraging free speech.
Back when Slashdot featured Hashsnot, one of the people commenting on that article challenged everyone to come up with a better parody... that's how ': was born. I kept adding to it and eventually worked it into a storyline for my comic. But AFAIK, It's never been featured by/.
I think telecommuting should be a trade-off... the employee gets to work at home in a customized environment... the benefit for the employer is twofold: one, the employee is happier and more productive because they get to set their own schedules; two, the employer saves on a LOT of resources... office space, etc.
Personally, I think that if the employer WANTS employees to telecommute, they should provide all the tools the employee will need... a computer, the software needed to log into the company's network remotely, etc. Everything else (desks, chairs, etc) are the responsibility of the employee.
I think that if the employer is WILLING to permit telecommuting but doesn't MANDATE it, the employee needs to be willing to provide most of the @-home materials... computer, etc. The employer still needs to provide any specialized software, though... including software to allow remote access onto the network (if necessary).
But this whole thing about mandating that employers provide this, and that, etc... I don't know if I want to give my employers that much access to my home. I mean, I like them just fine, but it generally sets a bad precident.
BUT, I'd like to point out that the original NeverWinter Nights community "just happened." In other words, it went in a direction that no-one planned for. And re-creating the environment simply enabled the communicty that "just happened," but had dispersed, to reconvene again.
I don't mean to say that you can't affect the community that's out there, but I tend to think that changes need to be made in _response_ to what people are doing, not in _anticipation_ to what someone thinks they will do. Jon Katz seems to be suggesting that people need to map out what a community will be before the community gets there, which I think is somewhat silly.
A planned community is not a community, it's a barracks.
My strip is based on the premise that computer companies swindle PC users out of their money, provide crappy products, and divert attention away from bugs instead of supporting users. How is that PC?
The joke is that the user was so pissed off at his computer that he picked up the keyboard and started pounding on the software box with all his might, which broke the keyboard in two. Which is something, I might add, that I've wanted to do many, many times with Microsoft Office.
At any rate, I agree with what Scott's saying about "clueless user" jokes, but I love User Friendly anyway. I'm just glad the "clueless user" jokes are few and far between...
You can plan an army. You can plan a cult. You can plan a corporate environment. You can't plan a community.
A community is the sum of the myriad of individuals, with all their quirks and idiosyncrasies, who interact with each other in the same space, real or virtual. These things happen, they can't be planned, they can't be regulated and remain a community. Communities are not cut and dry things, they just happen. It's messy.
The reason why communities fall apart is because the people who participate in them stop participating. Perhaps the environment within the community has changed, and the people who add value to it no longer wish to participate. Perhaps they no longer have the time to do so. Who knows? But you can't just go out there and plan a community.
Well, the "robots take over humanity" thing was never actually written about in any of his books... but it _is_ implied that at one time some robots interpreted the zeroth law in such a way as to justify _controlling_ humanity.
item the first is the fact that robots are illegal in the Empire.
item the second is when, in the later Foundation books, that guy starts searching for earth and finds all the original planets (from the Daneel and Elije Bailey novels)... there are some scraps in each of those visits where Asimov implies that some of those planets went under due to a conflict between robots and humans...
item the third is Asimov's assertion that it is possible for robots to interpret the laws so radically that it makes life difficult for humans. Take for example the planet of recluses (can't remember the name) where robots define "human" as _only_ people living on that planet alone...
At any rate, it was my impression that at some point in Foundation prehistory, the robots were running the show because it made it easier for them to obey the zeroth law, the humans got pissed and have a massive uprising, as a result the empire outlawed robots, and robots had to go into hiding in order to continue protecting humanity.
Is that the robots took those laws and postulated the Zeroth Law (which is, essentially, that robots are more responsible for protecting HUMANITY than they are any one person)... and then humanity was ultimately enslaved by robots, for a time.
The idea being "I have to protect you, whether you like it or not, and controlling you is the most efficient way to do it."
At least, that's what the later Foundation books seems to suggest. That's why robots are illegal in the Galactic Empire and post-Galactic Empire...
Track record of Religion and Science is even
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 2
Some religious movements have been Very Bad, some scientific movements have been Very Bad. In both cases, it is because the beleif (whether scientific or religious) JUST HAPPENED to help justify someone else's Ulterior Motive (tm).
If you want to keep slaves to ensure your economic prosperity, and you happen to find a passage or two in the Bible that can be used to support argument, suddenly its VERY CONVENIENT to call yourself a Christian.
If you want to exterminate a certain race, or get rid of people who are "ugly", suddenly it's VERY CONVENIENT to support Eugenics and Genetics Research.
Nevermind that in both cases, there are huge groups of people who belong in both groups who a) don't support slavery and b) don't support the mass extermination of races, or the killing of mentally handicapped people in the name of genetic purity.
Nevermind, because there are always people like Nicolas Monnet who are willing to paint entire groups with the same brush, simply because there are some people in that group that he really doesn't like.
The technology I'm specifically referring to is the Workplace Shell, OS/2's default UI and an example of a properly implemented OO UI. The Windows 95, 98, & NT4 UI tries to fake an OO desktop, but it's skin-deep at best.
The WPS' "desktop" is the master object... everything else in the UI is a refinement of that object. It is possible to change the attributes of entire parts of the desktop simply by changing parts of one object higher up in the object heirarchy. I know I'm not really explaining this very well... one of the other people in this thread gave a link to a good article explaining how an OS/2 company created a product that didn't contain any executables other than the install program, and I'll reprint that link here:
http://www.byte.com/art/9602/sec16/art1.htm
Among other things that the WPS allows you to do:
full drag and drop: you can push a file onto an application and it'll activate the application appropriately. In other words, push a text file onto a text editor and it will open the file for editing. Push a text file onto a fax icon and it will activate the fax machine (without opening the program first, if the program is truly WPS integrated). Push a text file onto a printer and it will print out the document directly.
Right click on an object and you'll get a context sensitive menu for that object (which may differ from other objects -- i.e., files and folders would have different options because they're used for different "things")
If you create a program link (an iconic representation of an application) and then move the application to a different location in your file structure, the link keeps track of the new location and updates it automatically.
Of course, one of the less useful but more fun aspects of this is the almost infinite ability to cusotize everything. You can give every folder a different background color, a different font, a different bitmap. It's possible to make certain objects conform to one color scheme and other object conform to another color scheme.
Yes, all these things can be done without the benefit of an OO environment, if you hard-code everything individually. But the way the WPS is designed you need only alter parts of some objects, and the changes cascade down through all their child objects. Very nice.
As a current OS/2 user who is experimenting with Linux, and as someone who knows many former OS/2 users who have switched to Linux, I'm curious as to whether the KDE development team is at all aware of the Workplace Shell, OS/2's object-oriented desktop. It seems as though the KDE and GNOME projects are concentrating on making Linux familiar to Windows users by emulating Windows's UI... which is nice and all, but you can only go so far by emulating the Windows UI, and after you get that far you'll have the same problems that Windows 9X and NT have.
I've read many posts on Slashdot and (and other places) that lament the abandonment of the Workplace Shell by IBM, and even former OS/2 users lament the lack of any similar Object Oriented UI in the Linux world. So then, my question is "are KDE developers familiar with the Workplace Shell, and are there any plans to incorporate similar features and technologies into KDE itself?"
Specifically, is overturning a Judge's finding of fact a faux paus among judges? Is it the kind of thing that would make a Judge resign?
I ask because some of the antics MS pulled seem a lot like the antics of the Chicago 7 trial -- where they just kept pissing off the judge. In the Chicago 7 trial, all the Judge's contempt rulings were overturned by the Supreme Court b/c he didn't site them for contempt immediately, and Judge Hoffman resigned.
Do you think Microsoft might be deliberately trying to provoke the same kind of actions?
Between the ideas behind open source & free software, and the claimed ideology behind Communist China. It is only tangential, but I can see a so-called "communist" country claiming that they are much the same for exactly the same reasons that opponents of open source & free software call it "a bunch of commie tripe."
When I heard Communist China wanted to make Linux their official distro on "ideological grounds" I laughed out loud. The thought of _anything_ being freely distributable in that country is ludicrous. They would immediately restrict the distribution of any distro they settled on, and would probably be scanning the comments in the code to weed out anything that would be considered detrimental to their sovereign state.
Free Software is a concept wherein individuals contribute code to a community of programmers and users. In the world of free software, while it is not impossible for a single individual or group to profit from such a contribution, the overall effect is that the entire body of programmers and users within the software community benefit overall from individual contributions, and is a bit harder for an individual to profit singly from such a contribution.
This is, in fact, _very_ close to _some_ of the ideals behind Marx's communism, and by extension Communist China. The main difference is that Communist China, while professing these ideals, is ruled by a dictatorial body that comes down ruthlessly and fatally on _anyone_ who opposes them. They are, in effect, not a "communist" government at all -- they are state socialism to the core, and in their grim pursuit of whatever it is they think they're upholding, they murder without remorse.
On the other hand, I could post on Slashdot and say "I think ESR/RMS/CmdrTaco/Whoever is a single-celled idiot" and while I might get moderated down and find a lot of flames crowding my in-box, I doubt very much that the jack-booted thugs would come a-pounding on my door.
Free Software is not communism, because communism is an ideology rooted the historical develeopment of _government_ and _economics_. However, Free Software has a lot in common with _anarchism_, which shares _some_ of communism's ideology and terminology (since many of their more formal concepts were formed at the same time, and Marx and Bakunin -- an anarchist "leader" -- were contemporaries).
I don't know that I really consider ESR's response to be "authoritive" -- it sounds much to knee-jerk for that -- but I also feel that Communism and Open Source/Free Software have little, very little, to do with each other.
Slashdot Mirror
As you can see here.
What are the plans of Samba client on Linux with regards to OS/2? Can we expect the ability to actually allow Linux (as a client OS) to access shares on an OS/2 file/print server on small networks/home networks?
There has been a lot of usability research concerning text printed on paper that indicates that serif fonts improve readibility, because the hooks at the ends of the fonts make words and sentences easier to follow. Has anything similar been done on the web? It seems to me that sans-serif fonts are easier to read on web sites because the low resolution of monitors (compared to paper, at any rate) make serif fonts harder to look at...
I doubt you've heard of them.
Comic strip: Help Desk (http://ubersoft.net)
Web zine: OS/2 e-Zine! (http://www.os2ezine.com)
I'm a relatively bright guy with a learning disability. I've been trying to learn to use Linux for the PAST TWO YEARS... and I'm still, PAINFULLY, in the "newbie" category.
Why? Because while it might be worth taking the time to learn everything, that time DOES NOT EXIST for me.
By day, I am a technical writer who must devote his time to his job. By night, I have a wife, compose and distribute music, do a comic strip on the net, and write for another web magazine.
Recently I tried to use Linux as a Samba file/print server for my OS/2-Linux-Win98 machine. I eventually gave up, because while I was making progress, IT WAS TAKING TOO LONG and all of the other things in my life were suffering as a result.
Because I was trying to use the Linux file/print server ALSO as an internet gateway (so I could take out the modem on my client and save an IRQ) I couldn't connect to the net, couldn't publish my strip. I spent four days straight trying to configure this, tweak that -- my wife was pissed. And let's not forget exactly how painfully difficult it is to find the documentation you're looking for on how to configure Samba, then throw in the fact that it's written with the expectation that the reader already has some knowledge of networking (I didn't).
I had plenty of Linux people willing to give me advice, but none of them were right in front of me. It was all very frustrating, and I gave up because I was very, very far behind in the rest of my work and I had to get cracking.
I personally feel that Linux is an OS worth learning... but I only have so much time I can devote to it, and I can't afford to devote more. Until Linux can be presented in an "easier" format, or until I get significantly more free time, I'm afraid I'll be an eternal newbie.
And this is from someone whose primary job is technology based. I don't want a Doctor taking time to learn Linux that he or she should be using peforming a triple bypass or something like that. And I'm pretty sure someone who just wants to get their checking account balanced in time to do taxes won't want to spend a month getting up to speed on using Linux, either.
In other words, yes, it might be worth the time, but is the time THERE?
As I understand it, Corel is using WINE as a way to make porting windows applications a lot faster, so that someone already heavily invested in Windows software won't have to spend as much time creating a product from scratch if they want it also available for Linux.
At least, that's what I _think_ they're doing.
Remember the Temple of Apshai? I miss that game... is it available anywhere? I remember waiting for what seemed like HOURS for that game to load up on the tape drive... and waiting an eternity for the asci characters to move the character through the dungeon... and making maps that never quite connected correctly... and getting killed by slimes...
*sigh*
That was the first great RPG game... waaay before Lord British.
Oh, and let's not forget those star trek sim games! What realism! And the Wumpus hunt!
The Commodore Pet was my first exposure to computers, too. I still think that computers with free-standing keyboards and monitors look funny...
I felt cheated when the C64 came out, b/c the whole thing was in the keyboard! I mean, where's the boxy metal and glass! The Pet felt like the control panel of a spaceship, or something! (Hey, I was eight, gimme a break).
Katz is making the following points:
1. Free speech is absolutely necessary
2. Pornography is absolutely necessary to further free speech because it promotes the awareness of sexuality
#2 has nothing to do with #1! Katz is trying to justify a moral or sociological stance (porn is good for society) by disguising it as a blow for free speech, and is painting people who disagree with that view as ENEMIES of free speech.
Luckily for him, it's easy to think of a few people who fit the role of the "bad guys." Just look for the people who are really interested in curtailing free speech, and you'll invariably find people who are against porn -- because it's an easy target. But the TRUTH of the matter is that his argument is a STRAW MAN... one has nothing to do with the other.
I agree that people are using anti-porn legislation to take away our civil liberties, and I agree that is WRONG. I OPPOSED the CDA and will OPPOSE any variants of the CDA. But that's not the point. I don't like people wrapping themselves up in the Bill of Rights to make a moral argument any more than I like people wrappign themsleves up in the Flag to make a moral argument.
I agree with you that people who say "I support free speech but we need to ban porn" are commiting doublespeak. I do think it's possible for someone to be for free speech and against porn, so long as they don't oppose it with legal means... I also think it's possible for people to like pornography and be right-wing fascist bastards.
And, for the record, it's quite possible for someone to be one of those repressed puritians that Katz likes to rag on and still be very active in defending someone else's civil liberties. Katz uses religious and moral belief as his whipping boy, and it's annoying. It's more annoying when he tries to pretend that it's all in the name of freedom of speech.
Perhaps there is also a "free speech anti-porn" contingency? Perhaps they're against porn but not to the extent that they're willing to do anything to curtail civil liberties?
Perhaps there's also a pro-porn, anti-free speech contingency? You'd be suprised. What I object to is the dilution of two separate stances -- free speech and pornography. One can say "I believe pornography is exploitative and immoral" without wanting to pass a law banning it. And one can work to convince people to abandon the porn industry without trying to change the laws to reflect this.
There are too many positions in this debate to have Katz draw a line in the sand and say "everyone standing over HERE is right and everyone standing over THERE is wrong." That is the tactic of all those politicians that Katz claims to dislike so much...
Katz claims that politicians are prudish, don't like sex, fear sex, consider sex immoral, whatever. I disagree: history has shown that politicians are some of the most sexually active people on the planet. The peccadillos of politicians are the stuff of legend.
The real issue here is that politicians take a sampling of social mores and exploit those mores as a way to stay elected. Most politicians don't give a damn about pornography on the internet -- unless they feel it'll get them elected. It has nothing to do with morality or prudishness, it has _everything_ to do with the accumulation of power.
Politicians will exploit the "sex card" in order to whip up hysteria and get themselves elected. They will exploit the "fear of terrorism card" in order to whip up hysteria, get themselves elected, and whittle away at our rights in order to increase the strength of their position.
None of this is particularly new.
What I absolutely DISAGREE with, however, is Katz' assertion that someone who speaks out against "pornography" is somehow diluting free speech. Free speech is free if and only if BOTH sides of the issue are heard.
In other words, if you only hear speech about how good sex is, how wonderful pornography is, how liberating it is, THAT IS NOT FREE SPEECH. If you only hear speech about how terrible sex is, how horrible pornography is, how exploitative it is, THAT IS NOT FREE SPEECH EITHER. Katz is confusing his particular moral stance (sexuality on the net is liberating) with free speech (which is an open exchange of ALL ideas, be they right or wrong).
I would hope Mr. Katz would use a bit more caution in the future. He has a tendency to paint everyone on the other side of his fence as reactionary idiots. Certainly many of them are, but such strong language tends to discourage a reasoned response from opponents -- thus discouraging free speech.
Shouldn't that be Wozniak? Just checking.
Back when Slashdot featured Hashsnot, one of the people commenting on that article challenged everyone to come up with a better parody... that's how ': was born. I kept adding to it and eventually worked it into a storyline for my comic. But AFAIK, It's never been featured by /.
eh, well, one guy told me that's the only strip of mine he's ever laughed at. You can't please all people...
I think telecommuting should be a trade-off... the employee gets to work at home in a customized environment... the benefit for the employer is twofold: one, the employee is happier and more productive because they get to set their own schedules; two, the employer saves on a LOT of resources... office space, etc.
Personally, I think that if the employer WANTS employees to telecommute, they should provide all the tools the employee will need... a computer, the software needed to log into the company's network remotely, etc. Everything else (desks, chairs, etc) are the responsibility of the employee.
I think that if the employer is WILLING to permit telecommuting but doesn't MANDATE it, the employee needs to be willing to provide most of the @-home materials... computer, etc. The employer still needs to provide any specialized software, though... including software to allow remote access onto the network (if necessary).
But this whole thing about mandating that employers provide this, and that, etc... I don't know if I want to give my employers that much access to my home. I mean, I like them just fine, but it generally sets a bad precident.
BUT, I'd like to point out that the original NeverWinter Nights community "just happened." In other words, it went in a direction that no-one planned for. And re-creating the environment simply enabled the communicty that "just happened," but had dispersed, to reconvene again.
I don't mean to say that you can't affect the community that's out there, but I tend to think that changes need to be made in _response_ to what people are doing, not in _anticipation_ to what someone thinks they will do. Jon Katz seems to be suggesting that people need to map out what a community will be before the community gets there, which I think is somewhat silly.
A planned community is not a community, it's a barracks.
My strip is based on the premise that computer companies swindle PC users out of their money, provide crappy products, and divert attention away from bugs instead of supporting users. How is that PC?
(A response from the author of #15)
The joke is that the user was so pissed off at his computer that he picked up the keyboard and started pounding on the software box with all his might, which broke the keyboard in two. Which is something, I might add, that I've wanted to do many, many times with Microsoft Office.
At any rate, I agree with what Scott's saying about "clueless user" jokes, but I love User Friendly anyway. I'm just glad the "clueless user" jokes are few and far between...
You can plan an army. You can plan a cult. You can plan a corporate environment. You can't plan a community.
A community is the sum of the myriad of individuals, with all their quirks and idiosyncrasies, who interact with each other in the same space, real or virtual. These things happen, they can't be planned, they can't be regulated and remain a community. Communities are not cut and dry things, they just happen. It's messy.
The reason why communities fall apart is because the people who participate in them stop participating. Perhaps the environment within the community has changed, and the people who add value to it no longer wish to participate. Perhaps they no longer have the time to do so. Who knows? But you can't just go out there and plan a community.
Well, the "robots take over humanity" thing was never actually written about in any of his books... but it _is_ implied that at one time some robots interpreted the zeroth law in such a way as to justify _controlling_ humanity.
item the first is the fact that robots are illegal in the Empire.
item the second is when, in the later Foundation books, that guy starts searching for earth and finds all the original planets (from the Daneel and Elije Bailey novels)... there are some scraps in each of those visits where Asimov implies that some of those planets went under due to a conflict between robots and humans...
item the third is Asimov's assertion that it is possible for robots to interpret the laws so radically that it makes life difficult for humans. Take for example the planet of recluses (can't remember the name) where robots define "human" as _only_ people living on that planet alone...
At any rate, it was my impression that at some point in Foundation prehistory, the robots were running the show because it made it easier for them to obey the zeroth law, the humans got pissed and have a massive uprising, as a result the empire outlawed robots, and robots had to go into hiding in order to continue protecting humanity.
Is that the robots took those laws and postulated the Zeroth Law (which is, essentially, that robots are more responsible for protecting HUMANITY than they are any one person)... and then humanity was ultimately enslaved by robots, for a time.
The idea being "I have to protect you, whether you like it or not, and controlling you is the most efficient way to do it."
At least, that's what the later Foundation books seems to suggest. That's why robots are illegal in the Galactic Empire and post-Galactic Empire...
Some religious movements have been Very Bad, some scientific movements have been Very Bad. In both cases, it is because the beleif (whether scientific or religious) JUST HAPPENED to help justify someone else's Ulterior Motive (tm).
If you want to keep slaves to ensure your economic prosperity, and you happen to find a passage or two in the Bible that can be used to support argument, suddenly its VERY CONVENIENT to call yourself a Christian.
If you want to exterminate a certain race, or get rid of people who are "ugly", suddenly it's VERY CONVENIENT to support Eugenics and Genetics Research.
Nevermind that in both cases, there are huge groups of people who belong in both groups who a) don't support slavery and b) don't support the mass extermination of races, or the killing of mentally handicapped people in the name of genetic purity.
Nevermind, because there are always people like Nicolas Monnet who are willing to paint entire groups with the same brush, simply because there are some people in that group that he really doesn't like.
The technology I'm specifically referring to is the Workplace Shell, OS/2's default UI and an example of a properly implemented OO UI. The Windows 95, 98, & NT4 UI tries to fake an OO desktop, but it's skin-deep at best.
The WPS' "desktop" is the master object... everything else in the UI is a refinement of that object. It is possible to change the attributes of entire parts of the desktop simply by changing parts of one object higher up in the object heirarchy. I know I'm not really explaining this very well... one of the other people in this thread gave a link to a good article explaining how an OS/2 company created a product that didn't contain any executables other than the install program, and I'll reprint that link here:
http://www.byte.com/art/9602/sec16/art1.htm
Among other things that the WPS allows you to do:
full drag and drop: you can push a file onto an application and it'll activate the application appropriately. In other words, push a text file onto a text editor and it will open the file for editing. Push a text file onto a fax icon and it will activate the fax machine (without opening the program first, if the program is truly WPS integrated). Push a text file onto a printer and it will print out the document directly.
Right click on an object and you'll get a context sensitive menu for that object (which may differ from other objects -- i.e., files and folders would have different options because they're used for different "things")
If you create a program link (an iconic representation of an application) and then move the application to a different location in your file structure, the link keeps track of the new location and updates it automatically.
Of course, one of the less useful but more fun aspects of this is the almost infinite ability to cusotize everything. You can give every folder a different background color, a different font, a different bitmap. It's possible to make certain objects conform to one color scheme and other object conform to another color scheme.
Yes, all these things can be done without the benefit of an OO environment, if you hard-code everything individually. But the way the WPS is designed you need only alter parts of some objects, and the changes cascade down through all their child objects. Very nice.
As a current OS/2 user who is experimenting with Linux, and as someone who knows many former OS/2 users who have switched to Linux, I'm curious as to whether the KDE development team is at all aware of the Workplace Shell, OS/2's object-oriented desktop. It seems as though the KDE and GNOME projects are concentrating on making Linux familiar to Windows users by emulating Windows's UI... which is nice and all, but you can only go so far by emulating the Windows UI, and after you get that far you'll have the same problems that Windows 9X and NT have.
I've read many posts on Slashdot and (and other places) that lament the abandonment of the Workplace Shell by IBM, and even former OS/2 users lament the lack of any similar Object Oriented UI in the Linux world. So then, my question is "are KDE developers familiar with the Workplace Shell, and are there any plans to incorporate similar features and technologies into KDE itself?"
Specifically, is overturning a Judge's finding of fact a faux paus among judges? Is it the kind of thing that would make a Judge resign?
I ask because some of the antics MS pulled seem a lot like the antics of the Chicago 7 trial -- where they just kept pissing off the judge. In the Chicago 7 trial, all the Judge's contempt rulings were overturned by the Supreme Court b/c he didn't site them for contempt immediately, and Judge Hoffman resigned.
Do you think Microsoft might be deliberately trying to provoke the same kind of actions?
I guess that's actually three questions...
Between the ideas behind open source & free software, and the claimed ideology behind Communist China. It is only tangential, but I can see a so-called "communist" country claiming that they are much the same for exactly the same reasons that opponents of open source & free software call it "a bunch of commie tripe."
When I heard Communist China wanted to make Linux their official distro on "ideological grounds" I laughed out loud. The thought of _anything_ being freely distributable in that country is ludicrous. They would immediately restrict the distribution of any distro they settled on, and would probably be scanning the comments in the code to weed out anything that would be considered detrimental to their sovereign state.
Free Software is a concept wherein individuals contribute code to a community of programmers and users. In the world of free software, while it is not impossible for a single individual or group to profit from such a contribution, the overall effect is that the entire body of programmers and users within the software community benefit overall from individual contributions, and is a bit harder for an individual to profit singly from such a contribution.
This is, in fact, _very_ close to _some_ of the ideals behind Marx's communism, and by extension Communist China. The main difference is that Communist China, while professing these ideals, is ruled by a dictatorial body that comes down ruthlessly and fatally on _anyone_ who opposes them. They are, in effect, not a "communist" government at all -- they are state socialism to the core, and in their grim pursuit of whatever it is they think they're upholding, they murder without remorse.
On the other hand, I could post on Slashdot and say "I think ESR/RMS/CmdrTaco/Whoever is a single-celled idiot" and while I might get moderated down and find a lot of flames crowding my in-box, I doubt very much that the jack-booted thugs would come a-pounding on my door.
Free Software is not communism, because communism is an ideology rooted the historical develeopment of _government_ and _economics_. However, Free Software has a lot in common with _anarchism_, which shares _some_ of communism's ideology and terminology (since many of their more formal concepts were formed at the same time, and Marx and Bakunin -- an anarchist "leader" -- were contemporaries).
I don't know that I really consider ESR's response to be "authoritive" -- it sounds much to knee-jerk for that -- but I also feel that Communism and Open Source/Free Software have little, very little, to do with each other.