"A University of Utah study claims that drivers who use a cell phone will be 'more impaired than drunken drivers with blood alcohol levels exceeding 0.08.' The study also says that use will turn a driver who is age 20 into age 70."
So by use of some faulty logic here, this would mean that everyone who is age 70 drives like they are drunk?:-P
Gnome does seem to have a simpler GUI than XP, although I haven't used it extensively for some time. For me, I tend to focus on the GUI's associated with the applications I use more than the os specific functions. If I spend all day using Firefox, that experience is going to be fairly similar on almost all major operating systems. One thing that I have noticed about Linux is that many applications differ greatly from the appearances/layout of things in the GUI. Especially ones that are written for a different window manager but get run using something different. For instance, applications written for X11 usually feel much different than native Gnome apps. This problem also affects Windows even though all applications are written for the same window manager. I think the only operating system that I have used that keeps a fair amount of similarity to the UI between applications is Mac OS X. At least, as an example, for that system, I know that the prefernces should be located in the same menus for each application. This isn't always true, but I think most developers try to follow Apple's guidelines.
Ah, I didn't realize that Ubuntu uses Gnome exclusively. As far as the steps needed to launch an application, I suppose the differences are probably pretty minimal.
Unfortunately I don't get to spend much time with a system that uses Gnome or KDE. The only linux computer I really use is the one that hosts my website and it is headless so most of my interaction with is is through a bash prompt over ssh. What you said about no OS being suited for a non-geek is pretty much true. I know viruses/spy-ware on Windows is a huge problem, but I do believe that will proper care it can almost be eliminated. My windows boxes haven't had problems with viruses so far. In this aspect, you really need to know what you are doing to use Windows safely.
Humm, I may be missing something but I don't see how either Windows XP or Ubuntu could be either harder or easier to use when compared to the other when all you are really doing is running some applications and not doing administrative or very operating system specific tasks.
I mean for Windows you go to start -> programs -> pick application.
For KDE you use K Menu -> program group -> pick application.
Unless your gf's dad was speaking of the applications he uses on Windows compared to what he uses on Unbuntu, I don't really see how XP or Unbuntu would really end up being that different from each other as far as simple tasks are concerned.
I am curious though, has he tried to install anything on his linux computer? Don't get me wrong, I think it is usually pretty easy to install something on linux, especially if you've set up apt-get or something similar, but even being asked to look at the command line is sometimes too much for some users.
The worst thing about Linux, IMHO, is that when something doesn't work right or something goes wrong, it usually requires a pretty deep understanding of the operating system to try and correct it. I mean I really had to learn quite a bit about Linux at one point to get an old wireless card to work in an aging laptop I had. This wasn't really a bad thing for me, I really enjoy learning new things about linux, but for most users any time spent doing something to fix problems or set something up is time wasted.
For some reason this kindled the mental image of a giant gorilla throwing poop at a brick wall which suddenly transforms into a cure for cancer. I don't know who is worse off the person who thinks that sheer computing power will solve everything or me:-/
Believe it or not, I saw a Mac OS X box that didn't have an administrator (read: as close as you can get to superuser for OS X) account. No one knew how all of the users ended up being non-admins, but the only solution we could come up with was a reinstall of the operating system. I think having a superuser account is probably a good idea, however I think someone developing a new operating system would be wise to make a type of account that allows the user to maintenence without becoming a superuser. I really like how Mac OS X handles it. I can install software or add users without needing to become a real superuser. I know through the shell I can gain superuser rights, but there really shouldn't be any reason for me to do so. A superuser is necessary for some cases, like you mentioned, but I think it should be considered a last resort rather than something you need to make even common changes.
Engineers of hardware (not just computer hardware, but buildings and that sort of engineering too) can be heard to make jokes about computer systems crashing but their bridges or buildings not falling down. However, I think one of the differences here is the type of testing that can be done. For instance, when you design a bridge you know what loads it should tolerate, what wind speeds to test for, and so on and so on. However, in software, most software fails under malicious attacks. I think this would be the equivalent of someone strapping TNT on the critical points of a bridge. I think thats one way to look at things, but thats only really for finding holes in software. General stability under normal use, should be achievable through good testing.
However, I don't know if I really want software companies making desktop software fault tolerant to things such as the hard drive being removed. If I'm typing a document and my hard drive gets ripped out of my machine or dies, I expect things to fail...my system just doesn't need to be this fault tolerant. It seems to me anyway, that the extra time and money invested in making software this tolerant (which I'm sure would be reflected upon the retail price of the software) is not something most users of desktop software are really looking for. Sure, it would be nice, but I don't think it would be worth the increased prices.
I have an G4 iBook and I am constantly surprised how quite it runs. Until last night, I wasn't even sure if it had a fan in it or not. I was compiling a DVD image and this was the first time I've heard the fan come on and thats after about 5 months of having used it for normal everyday things. Using wi-fi and turning the brightness up does drain the batter a little faster, but it still runs pretty long on one charge.
I think it would be a really bad idea to drop the battery life just to have a G5 in the box.
Since it seems that the grill is hosting the website linked from the article (or at least thats what he claims), it looks like this guys steak is going to be well done by the time the/.ing is over.
"Thanks for helping to fund and support a lack of competition with your shortsightedness." So, as a consumer I'm tasked to pay more and get less just to ensure that there always exists competition? That seems backwards to me. I evaluate my choices on what is the best offer at the time. If this ever changes in the future, then I will change what I subscribe to. If TiVo ever has a better offer, TiVo will provide my DVR. Competition and choice is great and necessary, but it is not my job to create competition. TiVo needs to create something that is comparable to what is offered out there.
I don't really see how TiVo can compete with some of the offerings by cable companies. I have Comcast cable and the DVR that they offer. Comcast's DVR costs $9.99 a month while I think TiVo is either the same or slightly more. Also, the hardware is free if you go through Comcast. One of the great things about this is I have a box that records HD content without having to spend a dime on hardware. I believe TiVo has similar hardware, but its cost is around $500 - $1000. Seems to me that it is very difficult to compete with this.
I thought it was a law that all publically traded companies had to maintain records of their communications, incase said materials need to be indicted. Anyway, you have to assume that for most companies (public or not) it is really easy for them to monitor internal communications. My employer even goes as far as to have a notice popup on every computer every time someone logs in. Seems like common sense not to talk about such things using communication methods provided by the entity you are saying things about.
"Normally less than 10 percent of the users connected to a system are actively sending requests; the others are thinking about their next action or typing in some data at the front end (thinking users)."
Thinking users?!?! I didn't know this article was supposed to be funny!
To me it seems the largest problem facing both Mac OS X and Linux in terms of games is the return that a publisher is going to see after funding a port from Windows to Mac OS or Linux. For whatever reason, many developers decide to use Windows specific technologies (namely directX) to develop their games. If I was a publisher, I probably wouldn't want to fund a port when I know that such a small market might not cover the time and money invested into creating the port. Now, some of these costs could be made lower by using OpenGL to develop. Certainly id games are a good showcase of using OpenGL to stunning results and then being able to easily port to another system. I mean all of this seems kind of odd...publishers have always given the most support to the most popular platform in both the PC and console worlds. If I enjoy PS2 games, I don't think I would buy a Gamecube in hopes that all of my favorite games will be ported. If you enjoy games made for Windows, why not buy (or "acquire", I don't really care) a copy of Windows for your PC? Seems to make sense to me.
Well, correct me if I am wrong, but what I was thinking is that there would be more overhead when creating a process compared to creating a thread. For instance, it would be quicker (less overhead) to create a few hundred threads rather than processes.
I agree completely. It almost makes me sick to see people do evil acts in the name of Jesus. I don't see how someone can claim to follow Him but end up being so far off the path that Jesus walked. I think homosexuality is one topic that many self proclaimed Christians have become hypocritical over. The Bible makes it clear that being intimate with someone of the same sex is a sin. However, in my area a church recently defrocked a minister because she was in a homosexual relationship but refused to end it. Some members of the church said that the wrong choice was made. However, I think, when looking at the Bible, they clearly made the right choice. If a minister was having extramarital relations, I think most people would want them defrocked and I don't see how this is different. Both are sins and if the minister is unwilling to give up this particular sin, then I don't think they should be a minister.
I wouldn't say that threads are faster but I do think it is fair to say that they have less overhead so you can many more threads on a system than you can processes. At least, this is what comes to my mind first when comparing threads to processes.
Everyone here on/. knows how much more secure Firefox is over IE, but I feel the points that the author brings up are valid ones. Think about it, Joe IE user sees the huge two page ad in the NYTimes and decides to check out this software...if he runs into even half of the dialogue boxes stated in the article he might be turned off before even getting the software installed. This would be very unfortunate. If Firefox wants to have a professional image (which I think they do once everything is up and running) they should sign their software and make an effort to have extensions signed. Even for me it seems a little off to go to the official links for extensions only to find that none are signed. Some other posters mentioned that Microsoft does with IE exactly what the author of the article suggested, merely make it seem secure. We all know that Firefox is secure, so why not make every effort for it to come accross to its users that way?
Right now I am using BitTorrent to download disk images of the X Live CD written about here on/. a few days ago and Fedora Core 3. I can't really think of any better examples of a legal use of a "p2p" network. I think BitTorrent is an especially good idea for OSS as it allows free software to be distributed in a manner that lowers the bandwidth usage of the host providing the software.
Slashdot Mirror
"A University of Utah study claims that drivers who use a cell phone will be 'more impaired than drunken drivers with blood alcohol levels exceeding 0.08.' The study also says that use will turn a driver who is age 20 into age 70."
:-P
So by use of some faulty logic here, this would mean that everyone who is age 70 drives like they are drunk?
Gnome does seem to have a simpler GUI than XP, although I haven't used it extensively for some time. For me, I tend to focus on the GUI's associated with the applications I use more than the os specific functions. If I spend all day using Firefox, that experience is going to be fairly similar on almost all major operating systems. One thing that I have noticed about Linux is that many applications differ greatly from the appearances/layout of things in the GUI. Especially ones that are written for a different window manager but get run using something different. For instance, applications written for X11 usually feel much different than native Gnome apps. This problem also affects Windows even though all applications are written for the same window manager. I think the only operating system that I have used that keeps a fair amount of similarity to the UI between applications is Mac OS X. At least, as an example, for that system, I know that the prefernces should be located in the same menus for each application. This isn't always true, but I think most developers try to follow Apple's guidelines.
Ah, I didn't realize that Ubuntu uses Gnome exclusively. As far as the steps needed to launch an application, I suppose the differences are probably pretty minimal.
Unfortunately I don't get to spend much time with a system that uses Gnome or KDE. The only linux computer I really use is the one that hosts my website and it is headless so most of my interaction with is is through a bash prompt over ssh. What you said about no OS being suited for a non-geek is pretty much true. I know viruses/spy-ware on Windows is a huge problem, but I do believe that will proper care it can almost be eliminated. My windows boxes haven't had problems with viruses so far. In this aspect, you really need to know what you are doing to use Windows safely.
Humm, I may be missing something but I don't see how either Windows XP or Ubuntu could be either harder or easier to use when compared to the other when all you are really doing is running some applications and not doing administrative or very operating system specific tasks.
I mean for Windows you go to start -> programs -> pick application.
For KDE you use K Menu -> program group -> pick application.
Unless your gf's dad was speaking of the applications he uses on Windows compared to what he uses on Unbuntu, I don't really see how XP or Unbuntu would really end up being that different from each other as far as simple tasks are concerned.
I am curious though, has he tried to install anything on his linux computer? Don't get me wrong, I think it is usually pretty easy to install something on linux, especially if you've set up apt-get or something similar, but even being asked to look at the command line is sometimes too much for some users.
The worst thing about Linux, IMHO, is that when something doesn't work right or something goes wrong, it usually requires a pretty deep understanding of the operating system to try and correct it. I mean I really had to learn quite a bit about Linux at one point to get an old wireless card to work in an aging laptop I had. This wasn't really a bad thing for me, I really enjoy learning new things about linux, but for most users any time spent doing something to fix problems or set something up is time wasted.
For some reason this kindled the mental image of a giant gorilla throwing poop at a brick wall which suddenly transforms into a cure for cancer. I don't know who is worse off the person who thinks that sheer computing power will solve everything or me :-/
My mouse has over 100 buttons. What I did was meld mouse and keyboard into one beautiful device!
Believe it or not, I saw a Mac OS X box that didn't have an administrator (read: as close as you can get to superuser for OS X) account. No one knew how all of the users ended up being non-admins, but the only solution we could come up with was a reinstall of the operating system. I think having a superuser account is probably a good idea, however I think someone developing a new operating system would be wise to make a type of account that allows the user to maintenence without becoming a superuser. I really like how Mac OS X handles it. I can install software or add users without needing to become a real superuser. I know through the shell I can gain superuser rights, but there really shouldn't be any reason for me to do so. A superuser is necessary for some cases, like you mentioned, but I think it should be considered a last resort rather than something you need to make even common changes.
Engineers of hardware (not just computer hardware, but buildings and that sort of engineering too) can be heard to make jokes about computer systems crashing but their bridges or buildings not falling down. However, I think one of the differences here is the type of testing that can be done. For instance, when you design a bridge you know what loads it should tolerate, what wind speeds to test for, and so on and so on. However, in software, most software fails under malicious attacks. I think this would be the equivalent of someone strapping TNT on the critical points of a bridge. I think thats one way to look at things, but thats only really for finding holes in software. General stability under normal use, should be achievable through good testing.
However, I don't know if I really want software companies making desktop software fault tolerant to things such as the hard drive being removed. If I'm typing a document and my hard drive gets ripped out of my machine or dies, I expect things to fail...my system just doesn't need to be this fault tolerant. It seems to me anyway, that the extra time and money invested in making software this tolerant (which I'm sure would be reflected upon the retail price of the software) is not something most users of desktop software are really looking for. Sure, it would be nice, but I don't think it would be worth the increased prices.
I would say +-4 hours using wireless and screen brightness much higher than half.
Man, drunk, enters home.
Wife: "So, whats the explanation for this one?"
Man: "I was paying the rent."
:)
I have an G4 iBook and I am constantly surprised how quite it runs. Until last night, I wasn't even sure if it had a fan in it or not. I was compiling a DVD image and this was the first time I've heard the fan come on and thats after about 5 months of having used it for normal everyday things. Using wi-fi and turning the brightness up does drain the batter a little faster, but it still runs pretty long on one charge.
I think it would be a really bad idea to drop the battery life just to have a G5 in the box.
"Imagine taking a photo of a street corner to find out where you are..."
Imagine reading that street sign you just took a photo of to find out where you are.
I think mine shall be Cow Bell.
Since it seems that the grill is hosting the website linked from the article (or at least thats what he claims), it looks like this guys steak is going to be well done by the time the /.ing is over.
"Thanks for helping to fund and support a lack of competition with your shortsightedness."
So, as a consumer I'm tasked to pay more and get less just to ensure that there always exists competition? That seems backwards to me. I evaluate my choices on what is the best offer at the time. If this ever changes in the future, then I will change what I subscribe to. If TiVo ever has a better offer, TiVo will provide my DVR. Competition and choice is great and necessary, but it is not my job to create competition. TiVo needs to create something that is comparable to what is offered out there.
I don't really see how TiVo can compete with some of the offerings by cable companies. I have Comcast cable and the DVR that they offer. Comcast's DVR costs $9.99 a month while I think TiVo is either the same or slightly more. Also, the hardware is free if you go through Comcast. One of the great things about this is I have a box that records HD content without having to spend a dime on hardware. I believe TiVo has similar hardware, but its cost is around $500 - $1000. Seems to me that it is very difficult to compete with this.
I thought it was a law that all publically traded companies had to maintain records of their communications, incase said materials need to be indicted. Anyway, you have to assume that for most companies (public or not) it is really easy for them to monitor internal communications. My employer even goes as far as to have a notice popup on every computer every time someone logs in. Seems like common sense not to talk about such things using communication methods provided by the entity you are saying things about.
1+1=2 even though no one has ever proven it to me and I have not made an effort to do so myself.
"Normally less than 10 percent of the users connected to a system are actively sending requests; the others are thinking about their next action or typing in some data at the front end (thinking users)."
Thinking users?!?! I didn't know this article was supposed to be funny!
To me it seems the largest problem facing both Mac OS X and Linux in terms of games is the return that a publisher is going to see after funding a port from Windows to Mac OS or Linux. For whatever reason, many developers decide to use Windows specific technologies (namely directX) to develop their games. If I was a publisher, I probably wouldn't want to fund a port when I know that such a small market might not cover the time and money invested into creating the port. Now, some of these costs could be made lower by using OpenGL to develop. Certainly id games are a good showcase of using OpenGL to stunning results and then being able to easily port to another system. I mean all of this seems kind of odd...publishers have always given the most support to the most popular platform in both the PC and console worlds. If I enjoy PS2 games, I don't think I would buy a Gamecube in hopes that all of my favorite games will be ported. If you enjoy games made for Windows, why not buy (or "acquire", I don't really care) a copy of Windows for your PC? Seems to make sense to me.
Well, correct me if I am wrong, but what I was thinking is that there would be more overhead when creating a process compared to creating a thread. For instance, it would be quicker (less overhead) to create a few hundred threads rather than processes.
I agree completely. It almost makes me sick to see people do evil acts in the name of Jesus. I don't see how someone can claim to follow Him but end up being so far off the path that Jesus walked. I think homosexuality is one topic that many self proclaimed Christians have become hypocritical over. The Bible makes it clear that being intimate with someone of the same sex is a sin. However, in my area a church recently defrocked a minister because she was in a homosexual relationship but refused to end it. Some members of the church said that the wrong choice was made. However, I think, when looking at the Bible, they clearly made the right choice. If a minister was having extramarital relations, I think most people would want them defrocked and I don't see how this is different. Both are sins and if the minister is unwilling to give up this particular sin, then I don't think they should be a minister.
I wouldn't say that threads are faster but I do think it is fair to say that they have less overhead so you can many more threads on a system than you can processes. At least, this is what comes to my mind first when comparing threads to processes.
Everyone here on /. knows how much more secure Firefox is over IE, but I feel the points that the author brings up are valid ones. Think about it, Joe IE user sees the huge two page ad in the NYTimes and decides to check out this software...if he runs into even half of the dialogue boxes stated in the article he might be turned off before even getting the software installed. This would be very unfortunate. If Firefox wants to have a professional image (which I think they do once everything is up and running) they should sign their software and make an effort to have extensions signed. Even for me it seems a little off to go to the official links for extensions only to find that none are signed. Some other posters mentioned that Microsoft does with IE exactly what the author of the article suggested, merely make it seem secure. We all know that Firefox is secure, so why not make every effort for it to come accross to its users that way?
Right now I am using BitTorrent to download disk images of the X Live CD written about here on /. a few days ago and Fedora Core 3. I can't really think of any better examples of a legal use of a "p2p" network. I think BitTorrent is an especially good idea for OSS as it allows free software to be distributed in a manner that lowers the bandwidth usage of the host providing the software.