It's not really a "too bad" though. More a matter of preference, I think. Personally I find the all-in-one app a little too bulky, though admittedly it should have less overhead than running a separate email app and browser app at the same time. I still am not understanding how the user can be limited in the number of running applications. Does this mean only one IE window at a time if they've already got Word and AIM open?
Yes, and the fact that Windows needs about a dozen applications running at any time to even be usable is interesting. I assume by application we now exclusively mean only those processes that show up in the task bar. I'm also assuming there will continue to be no limit to the amount of junk apps that run in the system tray and are almost exclusively terrible. worthless drains of memory and CPU time.
I remember quite a few years back reading (I believe) a John Dvorak column regarding palm-sized handheld computers replacing desktops. The concept was similar, calling for docks to extend functionality while at home, but enough power to do pretty much anything, anywhere. The idea piqued my interest at the time, and seemed feasible. I think that due to the conceptual shift that is also required so-called handtops have yet to become true desktop replacements and have also yet to achieve a truly ideal performance to size ratio. I think that anyone who says this is where things are going is right on. I see a future convergence of handheld style operating systems and desktop operating systems (mainly the integration of new input features into the desktop OS), but I can't imagine that we'd see widespread desktop replacement by handtops any time in the next five years.
I would have to say you're not too off-base here. I am really optimistic about the future of Linux, et al., however I am afraid that many are getting too cocky. The people that mindlessly say that Linux is doing so well and have nothing but incomplete software to point to need to stop talking and start helping (if they are not already).
Yes, there is a wealth of mature critical apps for Linux, but there are a lot of things that just don't exist yet. And if an average open source project releases its first usable release today, it will probably be a year or two before that app is really ready for use by many. The real problem is there still isn't a truly user-friendly desktop that anyone can use. Perhaps a big part of this is no distro has tried hard enough to make this a reality, but I think a bigger issue is that we're just trying to do things right here. While it is a noble goal, it is also a slow and difficult one and that needs to be kept in mind. I have no doubt that there will be a Linux desktop that will be easier and more straightforward than Windows within the next several years, but don't claim it's here yet or just around the corner.
Please understand I am in no way discrediting what has already been done, as it is simply amazing, however it is still falling short in terms of consistency, simplicity, and overall coherence. I look forward to actually wanting to ditch OS X in favor of Linux on my Mac. When I feel that would actually be a smart idea for pretty much any reason, then I know that Linux is 99% ready for everyone.
Do software patents simply cover a software concept and not how it is implemented, or is it more of an "I patented this method of sorting a linked list" kind of thing? I think this is important because if software related patents lie more in the implementation than the perceived result, I would be willing to bet that proprietary/closed source software companies violate patents constantly and cannot really be caught doing it, at least not easily. Either way, I think this whole issue is tricky but shouldn't be. "Intellectual property" is one of the most annoying things I can think of. Yes, people do need to make money off of creativity, but the current laws are pretty much just in place to secure the profits of large corporations, not the little guy.
Can we see a study about the efficiency of tabbed browsing? I understand it really boils down to a personal preference, but I don't really find it consistent with the rest of most GUIs. I do think that it is an innovative idea, however I do not think that it is really a key point to judge a browser on. I would more stick with standards conformance and general security and usability rather than specific neat features. I think my point is valid because IE is packed with tons of features that could be considered "cool," especially at the time they were introduced, but those alone do not make it a good browser. In fact, no amount of features could really redeem such a browser in the eyes of anyone who has struggled with IE security flaws.
While tabbed browsing is a neat feature, it is a double-edged sword in my mind. This is mainly because it truly separates the web browsing interface from the rest of the GUI (e.g. alt-tab doesn't cycle through browser tabs, ironically, but a separate shortcut will). My gripe with this is inconsistency. I personally think that consistency is one of the best ways to make a user interface truly easy to use. Browser tabs represent what used to be separate windows. When means of managing and navigating between windows/tabs start varying, then the interface starts to break down. This is unfortunate, because each GUI has its own attempt at global window management (in this case from the user's perspective). Tabs defeat this: individual tabs do not show up separately on a task/process bar, nor do they show up separately in window listings, nor in Exposé. As I said, this is mainly a matter of preference, especially for high end users, but I really think that there can be some more improvement here. It seems that geeks like me have fallen in love with tabbed browsing, but I think it's really in the beta stages now and we need to see some changes before we get too used to it.
A company is capable of producing an innovative new handheld device running an allegedly unknown OS, and they use PayPal to accept payments? That alone dropped their credibility to almost none. This is one case where I will definitely have to see to believe.
Guess what, those mileage figures are impossible. Diesel isn't some miracle fuel, and Fords aren't wonder trucks. The way that gasoline and diesel engines work is fairly similar. If diesel engines automatically doubled the mileage at about the same price point and same performance, then we'd all be driving diesels. BTW with any transmission that F350 would be past efficient RPMs at 70MPH. I don't mean to be excessively contrary, as I do favor diesel engines myself, but use facts please.
PS I drive a vehicle weighing in around 30,000 pounds almost every day at work and it has a gas engine. Moreover, it has a gas engine smaller than many you can get in light trucks now, but still gets acceptable performance. Go figure.
Essentially, nothing. The problem is that people are buying the hummer and other SUVs as car-replacements. That means not only are they getting around in them on a day-to-day basis, but they are also driving them like they drove their cars: fast, hard, and with overdue maintenance. Larger, less efficient vehicles become even more inefficient (not to mention dangerous) when driven hard. Since the hummer is considered to be something of an off-road vehicle, it probably doesn't lose huge points on efficiency in that area. However, since most people are not using the hummer for its claimed intended purpose, it is grossly inefficient, but not shockingly more so than other, similar vehicles. I have a friend who drives a Durango as if it was a sports car and he gets about 8-10 MPG. Basically, a big part of the whole gas consumption problem is not just the vehicles but also how they are driven. We are going to need large, gas-hog engines for the foreseeable future to drive trucks and heavy equipment, but when those engines are overused in personal vehicles, those vehicles need to be thought of as trucks instead of as cars.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. If you are referring to the H2, then it is a completely new, unique, and essentially worthless chassis that is closer to that of a pickup truck than the military's hummers. If the enigine is in fact underpowered, I find it hard to believe that would cause more gas consumption. The reasons for this are fairly simple: first, probably all of these vehicles have automatic transmissions which will probably shift before the engine gets much past its peak efficiency RPMs; and, second, just because the engine is working harder than a larger one might doesn't mean that it is necessarily consuming more fuel. Regardless, this figure of 2 MPG seems like nonsense to me. Even the large commercial truck I drive every day gets better city mileage than that. Yes, the hummers are gas hogs, and no, I don't think anyone needs to be driving them, especially not in civilian use, but don't bullshit us. Supporting your claims with lies and exaggerations will only weaken your case, and I honestly don't want that.
I still have yet to hear about how reliable this stuff actually is. Putting an AP at every intersection simply isn't good enough. I'm not saying that's what they are doing, but if it is than it's basically pointless. To deliver speeds of greater than 1Mbps for all users there would need to be essentially thousands of access points to handle this, seeing as the signal strength issues lie mainly on the client side. Policing (at any level) via WiFi sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Agreed. It's probably true that, in some or even most ways, we are ridiculously inefficient in how we do things on computers (especially in a GUI). However, simply because a method is seen as scientifically inefficient does not mean it does not work just fine anyway. I have found that by using any setting beside hot on the washing machine I can wash my clothes without sorting based on color. They come out just as clean, and I save time by not doing the sort. There are probably millions of people who would chastise me for doing something like this, and simply call me lazy, but I have found the best way for me to do something and that's how I do it. Radoslaw Sokol is attempting to claim that there is one best way to navigate files (and web pages, additionally, though using a different metaphor), and that it is the only method that should be used by anyone at all. I agree that sometimes a kick in the pants is good, because change is often necessary. However, the counterpoints are completely correct: until the underlying filesystem really changes, spatial navigation is not really a smart nor efficient way of doing things. Simply because we claim most modern GUI's to be a desktop metaphor does not mean that everything has to be a direct representation of how a physical desktop works. Imagine the annoyance of having to put a tool back in a palette before you selected a new one in, say, a photo editing application. Your thought process is already on to what you are about to do, not what you were doing. The whole reason that we use computers in the first place is that they are supposed to make things faster, better, and more efficient. They do not necessarily do this by being a replica of non-computer practices, and we know this. Until spatial navigation does actually become more efficient, it's going to stay off for me. Oh, and the lecture about how we should use tabbed browsing is downright offensive, by the way. Lose the attitude and gain respect, Radoslaw Sokol.
Well that's interesting. This goes right along with the alleged leaked Windows source code. I have yet to even hear someone remotely reputable claim to have compiled and run even a portion of either of these sources. It would only seem natural that someone with the source code for something they have interest in would compile and test it, especially when it's something that is not yet available by any other means. Sure, the complaint is that the integrity of the game has been compromised because cheats and hacks can be developed more rapidly with the aid of the source code. This is all good and well, but these so-called cheats aren't just going to diddle around with the code until the game comes out so they can test it.
What I'm trying to get at is this: yes, I believe that something was stolen from Valve, and that it involved Half-Life 2. No, I do not believe that it was anywhere near the full source code of the game. Consequently, Valve's claims would then be essentially bunk, unless it was specifically the security chunk of the code that was stolen, which seems mighty convenient. What it all boils down to is that this all happened at a convenient time, which has been established. I didn't have to work yesterday because it was raining in the morning. The forecast said it would storm all day, but instead it really only rained for a couple hours early in the day. So while it was true that tree work would not have been the best idea in the morning, it later became a beautiful day. This is a bad analogy, but the point should be clear.
Interestingly, that alone provides only so much protection. Other than the good karma from paying for software you use, there is no guarantee of safety from a shrinkwrapped software package. I have actually obtained software legally for mulitple platforms in a sealed package that infected my computer, or at least tried to. Either way, this whole thread is still funny.
That is key, as I don't think corporations are even considering that aspect of open source software. Considering that, in all fairness, efforts should be made to contribute back to the community when using open source software, I think that the alleged TCO benefits begin shrinking drastically. I hope this has been mentioned somewhere, since it needs to be a reality. I don't want to see anything hindering the overall adoption of open source, but I also don't want to see the open source community being abused more than it already is now.
BTW I assumed the original poster here meant what Apple hasn't already released publicly, as I assumed everyone who knew much about open source would know about that. Silly me if I'm wrong.
Re:So will we see Darwin open sourced?
on
Evaluating Open Source
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Maybe a little better than seeing all of Microsoft's code open sourced, but don't count on seeing any of Apple's proprietary code. Sure, if we could see the source for everything, right now, we could accomplish awesome things. But what is the incentive for most any software company to release their code when it is almost solely the act of keeping it proprietary that generates their income? If you want to see real changes in commercial software in regards to general openness, then we need to see real changes in the global and local economic model.
Re:avoiding significant development costs..
on
Evaluating Open Source
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Doesn't necessarily have to be at the expense of anything. Mainly, though, it can lead to more complicated development, especially during a transition period. Also, with the change in how technical support is handled, more problems can arise at that point. Basically, the best thing to do is check everything out as much as you can and be very prepared. A wide margin of error, especially in the time department, can lead to a great deal of success when making a potentially massive transition.
You do raise a good point, unfortunately. It is sad how stupid China can be. They really aren't doing a terrible job, all things considered, but they could be doing much, much better if they stopped ruling with an iron fist. Not to be overly negative, but there's probably a good chance that (if your facts check out) the Chinese government is holding back treatments as a sick method of population control. Improbable, yes, but I'm sure it has at least crossed the minds of many leaders there.
Regarding the number of SARS cases: who cares how many? It's good to stomp out any disease as quickly as possible, if life preservation is the goal. Also, if nothing else, it's great practice for if and when even worse things come around.
Slashdot Mirror
Almost there!
Stay on target!
Almost there!
Stay on target!
Almost there!
Stay on target!
Almost there!
And this has nothing to do with the post, however, where does the money go? Free revenue for Google? Time to RTFA I suppose...
It's not really a "too bad" though. More a matter of preference, I think. Personally I find the all-in-one app a little too bulky, though admittedly it should have less overhead than running a separate email app and browser app at the same time. I still am not understanding how the user can be limited in the number of running applications. Does this mean only one IE window at a time if they've already got Word and AIM open?
Yes, and the fact that Windows needs about a dozen applications running at any time to even be usable is interesting. I assume by application we now exclusively mean only those processes that show up in the task bar. I'm also assuming there will continue to be no limit to the amount of junk apps that run in the system tray and are almost exclusively terrible. worthless drains of memory and CPU time.
I remember quite a few years back reading (I believe) a John Dvorak column regarding palm-sized handheld computers replacing desktops. The concept was similar, calling for docks to extend functionality while at home, but enough power to do pretty much anything, anywhere. The idea piqued my interest at the time, and seemed feasible. I think that due to the conceptual shift that is also required so-called handtops have yet to become true desktop replacements and have also yet to achieve a truly ideal performance to size ratio. I think that anyone who says this is where things are going is right on. I see a future convergence of handheld style operating systems and desktop operating systems (mainly the integration of new input features into the desktop OS), but I can't imagine that we'd see widespread desktop replacement by handtops any time in the next five years.
Yes, there is a wealth of mature critical apps for Linux, but there are a lot of things that just don't exist yet. And if an average open source project releases its first usable release today, it will probably be a year or two before that app is really ready for use by many. The real problem is there still isn't a truly user-friendly desktop that anyone can use. Perhaps a big part of this is no distro has tried hard enough to make this a reality, but I think a bigger issue is that we're just trying to do things right here. While it is a noble goal, it is also a slow and difficult one and that needs to be kept in mind. I have no doubt that there will be a Linux desktop that will be easier and more straightforward than Windows within the next several years, but don't claim it's here yet or just around the corner.
Please understand I am in no way discrediting what has already been done, as it is simply amazing, however it is still falling short in terms of consistency, simplicity, and overall coherence. I look forward to actually wanting to ditch OS X in favor of Linux on my Mac. When I feel that would actually be a smart idea for pretty much any reason, then I know that Linux is 99% ready for everyone.
Do software patents simply cover a software concept and not how it is implemented, or is it more of an "I patented this method of sorting a linked list" kind of thing? I think this is important because if software related patents lie more in the implementation than the perceived result, I would be willing to bet that proprietary/closed source software companies violate patents constantly and cannot really be caught doing it, at least not easily. Either way, I think this whole issue is tricky but shouldn't be. "Intellectual property" is one of the most annoying things I can think of. Yes, people do need to make money off of creativity, but the current laws are pretty much just in place to secure the profits of large corporations, not the little guy.
While tabbed browsing is a neat feature, it is a double-edged sword in my mind. This is mainly because it truly separates the web browsing interface from the rest of the GUI (e.g. alt-tab doesn't cycle through browser tabs, ironically, but a separate shortcut will). My gripe with this is inconsistency. I personally think that consistency is one of the best ways to make a user interface truly easy to use. Browser tabs represent what used to be separate windows. When means of managing and navigating between windows/tabs start varying, then the interface starts to break down. This is unfortunate, because each GUI has its own attempt at global window management (in this case from the user's perspective). Tabs defeat this: individual tabs do not show up separately on a task/process bar, nor do they show up separately in window listings, nor in Exposé. As I said, this is mainly a matter of preference, especially for high end users, but I really think that there can be some more improvement here. It seems that geeks like me have fallen in love with tabbed browsing, but I think it's really in the beta stages now and we need to see some changes before we get too used to it.
A company is capable of producing an innovative new handheld device running an allegedly unknown OS, and they use PayPal to accept payments? That alone dropped their credibility to almost none. This is one case where I will definitely have to see to believe.
This is so much better than X-Ray vision!
But, on the -1st day, God created Python.
Guess what, those mileage figures are impossible. Diesel isn't some miracle fuel, and Fords aren't wonder trucks. The way that gasoline and diesel engines work is fairly similar. If diesel engines automatically doubled the mileage at about the same price point and same performance, then we'd all be driving diesels. BTW with any transmission that F350 would be past efficient RPMs at 70MPH. I don't mean to be excessively contrary, as I do favor diesel engines myself, but use facts please. PS I drive a vehicle weighing in around 30,000 pounds almost every day at work and it has a gas engine. Moreover, it has a gas engine smaller than many you can get in light trucks now, but still gets acceptable performance. Go figure.
Essentially, nothing. The problem is that people are buying the hummer and other SUVs as car-replacements. That means not only are they getting around in them on a day-to-day basis, but they are also driving them like they drove their cars: fast, hard, and with overdue maintenance. Larger, less efficient vehicles become even more inefficient (not to mention dangerous) when driven hard. Since the hummer is considered to be something of an off-road vehicle, it probably doesn't lose huge points on efficiency in that area. However, since most people are not using the hummer for its claimed intended purpose, it is grossly inefficient, but not shockingly more so than other, similar vehicles. I have a friend who drives a Durango as if it was a sports car and he gets about 8-10 MPG. Basically, a big part of the whole gas consumption problem is not just the vehicles but also how they are driven. We are going to need large, gas-hog engines for the foreseeable future to drive trucks and heavy equipment, but when those engines are overused in personal vehicles, those vehicles need to be thought of as trucks instead of as cars.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. If you are referring to the H2, then it is a completely new, unique, and essentially worthless chassis that is closer to that of a pickup truck than the military's hummers. If the enigine is in fact underpowered, I find it hard to believe that would cause more gas consumption. The reasons for this are fairly simple: first, probably all of these vehicles have automatic transmissions which will probably shift before the engine gets much past its peak efficiency RPMs; and, second, just because the engine is working harder than a larger one might doesn't mean that it is necessarily consuming more fuel. Regardless, this figure of 2 MPG seems like nonsense to me. Even the large commercial truck I drive every day gets better city mileage than that. Yes, the hummers are gas hogs, and no, I don't think anyone needs to be driving them, especially not in civilian use, but don't bullshit us. Supporting your claims with lies and exaggerations will only weaken your case, and I honestly don't want that.
I still have yet to hear about how reliable this stuff actually is. Putting an AP at every intersection simply isn't good enough. I'm not saying that's what they are doing, but if it is than it's basically pointless. To deliver speeds of greater than 1Mbps for all users there would need to be essentially thousands of access points to handle this, seeing as the signal strength issues lie mainly on the client side. Policing (at any level) via WiFi sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Agreed. It's probably true that, in some or even most ways, we are ridiculously inefficient in how we do things on computers (especially in a GUI). However, simply because a method is seen as scientifically inefficient does not mean it does not work just fine anyway. I have found that by using any setting beside hot on the washing machine I can wash my clothes without sorting based on color. They come out just as clean, and I save time by not doing the sort. There are probably millions of people who would chastise me for doing something like this, and simply call me lazy, but I have found the best way for me to do something and that's how I do it. Radoslaw Sokol is attempting to claim that there is one best way to navigate files (and web pages, additionally, though using a different metaphor), and that it is the only method that should be used by anyone at all. I agree that sometimes a kick in the pants is good, because change is often necessary. However, the counterpoints are completely correct: until the underlying filesystem really changes, spatial navigation is not really a smart nor efficient way of doing things. Simply because we claim most modern GUI's to be a desktop metaphor does not mean that everything has to be a direct representation of how a physical desktop works. Imagine the annoyance of having to put a tool back in a palette before you selected a new one in, say, a photo editing application. Your thought process is already on to what you are about to do, not what you were doing. The whole reason that we use computers in the first place is that they are supposed to make things faster, better, and more efficient. They do not necessarily do this by being a replica of non-computer practices, and we know this. Until spatial navigation does actually become more efficient, it's going to stay off for me. Oh, and the lecture about how we should use tabbed browsing is downright offensive, by the way. Lose the attitude and gain respect, Radoslaw Sokol.
What I'm trying to get at is this: yes, I believe that something was stolen from Valve, and that it involved Half-Life 2. No, I do not believe that it was anywhere near the full source code of the game. Consequently, Valve's claims would then be essentially bunk, unless it was specifically the security chunk of the code that was stolen, which seems mighty convenient. What it all boils down to is that this all happened at a convenient time, which has been established. I didn't have to work yesterday because it was raining in the morning. The forecast said it would storm all day, but instead it really only rained for a couple hours early in the day. So while it was true that tree work would not have been the best idea in the morning, it later became a beautiful day. This is a bad analogy, but the point should be clear.
Why would they spend money when people apparently take electronic law enforcement upon themselves when they care?
Interestingly, that alone provides only so much protection. Other than the good karma from paying for software you use, there is no guarantee of safety from a shrinkwrapped software package. I have actually obtained software legally for mulitple platforms in a sealed package that infected my computer, or at least tried to. Either way, this whole thread is still funny.
That is key, as I don't think corporations are even considering that aspect of open source software. Considering that, in all fairness, efforts should be made to contribute back to the community when using open source software, I think that the alleged TCO benefits begin shrinking drastically. I hope this has been mentioned somewhere, since it needs to be a reality. I don't want to see anything hindering the overall adoption of open source, but I also don't want to see the open source community being abused more than it already is now.
BTW I assumed the original poster here meant what Apple hasn't already released publicly, as I assumed everyone who knew much about open source would know about that. Silly me if I'm wrong.
Maybe a little better than seeing all of Microsoft's code open sourced, but don't count on seeing any of Apple's proprietary code. Sure, if we could see the source for everything, right now, we could accomplish awesome things. But what is the incentive for most any software company to release their code when it is almost solely the act of keeping it proprietary that generates their income? If you want to see real changes in commercial software in regards to general openness, then we need to see real changes in the global and local economic model.
Doesn't necessarily have to be at the expense of anything. Mainly, though, it can lead to more complicated development, especially during a transition period. Also, with the change in how technical support is handled, more problems can arise at that point. Basically, the best thing to do is check everything out as much as you can and be very prepared. A wide margin of error, especially in the time department, can lead to a great deal of success when making a potentially massive transition.
Regarding the number of SARS cases: who cares how many? It's good to stomp out any disease as quickly as possible, if life preservation is the goal. Also, if nothing else, it's great practice for if and when even worse things come around.
This site appears to have some useful information regarding satellite internet access.
Totally. And it's even bigger wimps that put out their cigarettes first.