I used to hook my series 5 up to a Linux box using the terminal application and then transfer files using the built-in Z-modem support... You just need to attach a tty to your serial port on the Linux machine. This also allows you to do cool things like use the Series 5 as a text terminal for your machine, so you can read email/chat on IRC whilst someone else uses the Linux box for something more graphical =)
You're right that these things are expensive, but they're absolutely brilliant when you make a point of using them. I use mine for knocking up web pages when I'm away from my computer, writing reports, keeping track of email addresses and my timetable, recording quicky voice notes and anything else I can dream up (playing old ZX Spectrum games is a biggy;).
Probably the worst thing is the size. Not so bad in winter when I can shove it into my jacket pocket, but finding room for it can be a bit of a pain in the butt in hotter weather.
There are loads of ways to achieve this. Try going to the top of the block of lines you wish to indent and typing: :s/^/\t/10 or hit v, move the cursor to select the lines to indent and hit either: > or type: :s/^/\t/ Also try: 10>> when the cursor is at the top of the block.
Sure, so it doesn't quite involve only a text editor, but every single report I ever had to hand in during my time at uni. was typed using vi, with LaTeX markup. Strangely, Word-using lusers often commented how much better my reports looked too =).
And yes, I used graphs, diagrams and bitmaps in my documents as well (using Gnuplot, Xfig and XV respectively... =)
If vi and the command-line oriented LaTeX are too much then I'd recommend a peek at Lyx, though...
Perhaps I should have made that 'once firmly established'. I'm well aware that certain OS projects have been and gone, but there is a certain critical mass which they achieve beyond which I think it's next to impossible to bring them down. The failed projects I'm aware of mostly didn't have wide enough appeal (ie. they were geared towards very specific tasks), or simply not enough people were using them...
Since the KDE has about as wide an appeal as it is possible to have, and also an extremely large existing userbase (if the ftp traffic to their site is to be believed), I think it qualifies under those two criteria at least for an 'established project'... =)
The statement that Miguel makes that 'KDE is basically finished' is completely false, for the same reason that the statement 'Linux is finished' would be. One of the best things about Open Source projects is that, once established, it's extraordinarily difficult (if not impossible) to make them go away.
Firstly, even if the 'core developers' for a project were to give up, there is nearly always someone waiting in the wings to take over from them.
Secondly, a better version of a rival program does not obsolete a project, it merely inspires the users to go out and bring their program up to the newly-established level (eg. If a 'must-have' feature were introduced in Enlightenment, would the Window Maker crew give up? No, they would simply incorporate that feature themselves...). I think that this has to do with the loyalty which Open Source projects inspire in their users and developers. A program which you use or develop is your 'toy' or 'baby', and you're obliged to make it good/better or lose some of your credibility as a programmer. At the same time, it's this unswerving loyalty which cause the 'holy wars' in the Unix world. Your example of C vs C++ is one of these, and whilst I think a large number of hackers prefer C, there are an equal number of (a different kind of) hackers who actually prefer to use C++. This loyalty to C++ as a programming language is likely to give KDE more credibility in some people's eyes.
Thirdly, because money is less of a motivating factor, programs are not dropped because they are 'not profitable' or because a company gos out of business.
As I said at the beginning, if someone were to say 'Linux is finished', we'd all laugh. For many tasks there are better alternatives than Linux, but this inspires Linux users and developers to do better, and hence gain wider usage (drawing from those who would have chosen a different solution before) in general.
No, KDE is far from finished, in fact if anything the existence of the Gnome indirectly ensures that KDE will live on and thrive a lot longer than it may have done otherwise. Because people are constantly talking about the development of the Linux desktop, the KDE is constantly evolving and improving as more and more people get involved and give it a try.
As you say, it's better for both projects that the other exists, since competition drives the development further. Looking at the 'up and coming' features of either project, it's extremely hard to say that one is a clear winner over another, and that's the way I sincerely hope it stays.
I'm not sure I agree with exactly what Jon is saying here. On/. for instance, the shutup software exists in two forms, first there's the moderation/filtering out of flamers/trolls and just downright idiots in the comment forums, and this I appreciate greatly. Secondly, there's the author filtering. I can't help but feel that this creates exactly the sort of balance which is needed, ie. a sort of chaotic democracy. It would be a little bit one-sided if it were possible for a post which you, the average reader, made to be filtered out, and not to give those same reader's the opportunity to filter out the posts (in this case onto the front page) made be the people who run the system, and hence who are in charge of filtering.
It creates a nice sense of evenness and fairness; Despite the fact that CmdrTaco runs the site, I still have the power to remove him from the front page if I want, the same as I have to power to filter out a hoard of other things, be they by article type, comment rating, or any of the other options. I see it more as CmdrTaco (and anyone else who runs a site like his) empowering his readers, instead of the tradition media where you get even *less* choice.
Saying that, I don't use the filtering myself. I may not like someone's style of writing, or even the things which they write about, but at the end of the day it's still worth checking out what they've written, since without you checking and perhaps commenting on what they've said, then they're never going to get any better at it, and they'll keep making the same mistakes over and over. Not to mention the fact that if you filter out a bunch of stuff, you might miss something important, or at least something which appeals to you or touches you personally in some way. Sure, it might not be much, but if you ask me, it's better to keep about an open mind about an article (or anything else), rather than just assuming it'll all be guff before you even click the link.
Here in the UK I would say that among my friends around half (including myself) own MiniDisc equipment. The other half wouldn't say no if they had the cash either.
OK, so it's a little biased since I know a lot of gadget-lovers, but amusing nonetheless...
Making the assumption that this book is in the 'self-help' vein (ie. 'how to run your business better' [tm]), it strikes me that a bit of personal insight on the part of B.G. would be more than a little useful... People reading this want a piece of the MS pie, they dream perhaps of one day being the next Bill themselves (or they're just reviewers;). To understand how to be as successful, they need to understand why and how MS is successful, not just know that this is in fact the case. In truth it doesn't sound like this book is much more than a list of do and don't recipes for management, it doesn't touch on the why at all.
This is where a bit of insight on B.G.'s part is really essential. He could have given the book a much more personal touch; filled it with personal anecdotes, analyses of situations at MS past and present and what he actually thinks and feels about those events. The word 'character' springs to mind, and if there's one thing I think this book probably proves, it's how characterless our Mr Gates really is (as if we all didn't know already...).
Instead of all this we're presented with this purported managerial panacea which amounts to little more than a todo list. And it's a list any manager could ask his engineers for any day of the week (and for a good few less $$ as well).
OK... Sure J.K. is the one directly benefitting from this, and when you look at it none-too-closely, he may appear to be getting something for nothing, or something for having done very little, but try and see the bigger picture.
In 'doing what he's done', Katz has proven that to sell a book you don't necessarily have to go through the conventional motions. He went against the grain, did something a little unusual, something in fact that nobody has really done before. And sure, the result is a bit of money in his pocket, he bloody well deserves it! He took a risk and it paid off, that's what life's about.
Now that the risk has paid off for someone, others are sure to follow. He's proved that the conventional avenues for book advertising aren't the be all and end all, and that book publishers should open their eyes a little.
So who benefits? Well, potentially thousands of authors and aspiring authors who would have otherwise gone unpublished, or as Katz says himself, who would have been forced out of publication by sales people only choosing to print a few thousand copies. It's possible then that as a result of that, thousands of people across the world will hear about and read a book which they would not have otherwise read, and some might even enjoy them (And here I don't just mean Katz's one!).
Imagine a situation where you find yourself writing a book, wouldn't you find it useful to know that this sort of thing was possible?
Does this sort of thing belong on/.? Well, I dunno... I like hearing about the changes which technology (esp. the internet) is having on the world, and that's part of what/. is about, isn't it? Sure, it's not a new microprocessor or some new piece of nanotechnology, but it's a new process (even if it seemed obvious to you before he did, he's proved it's possible now, to the likes of publishers, proof is worth more than spouting a couple of ideas). In many ways, the internet is about challenging the way we look at things today, from the way we shop to the way we converse with one another, this is just another example...
You don't even have to like Katz to see the potential knock-on effect this will have. And even if it doesn't, it'll still be interesting to watch.
And you talk about being selfish and egotistical? The way I see it, if you're out to make a lasting contribution to society (and believe it or not, there *are* people out there-I believe RMS is one of them-who want to make a contribution for non-egotistical reasons...), then in sacrificing children/relationships it might just be possible that that person is being far less selfish than he who merely seeks pleasures for himself within his own lifetime.
What's more admirable, striving to have the best life for yourself, or giving up that (perceived, perhaps) better life in order to ensure that tommorrow the world will be a better place?
I'd rather die knowing that I'd made a tenth of the contribution that someone like RMS has, than simply knowing I'd had a good time...
Slashdot Mirror
I used to hook my series 5 up to a Linux box using the terminal application and then transfer files using the built-in Z-modem support... You just need to attach a tty to your serial port on the Linux machine. This also allows you to do cool things like use the Series 5 as a text terminal for your machine, so you can read email/chat on IRC whilst someone else uses the Linux box for something more graphical =)
You're right that these things are expensive, but they're absolutely brilliant when you make a point of using them. I use mine for knocking up web pages when I'm away from my computer, writing reports, keeping track of email addresses and my timetable, recording quicky voice notes and anything else I can dream up (playing old ZX Spectrum games is a biggy ;).
Probably the worst thing is the size. Not so bad in winter when I can shove it into my jacket pocket, but finding room for it can be a bit of a pain in the butt in hotter weather.
There are loads of ways to achieve this. Try going to the top of the block of lines you wish to indent and typing:
:s/^/\t/10
or hit v, move the cursor to select the lines to indent and hit either:
>
or type:
:s/^/\t/
Also try:
10>>
when the cursor is at the top of the block.
Sure, so it doesn't quite involve only a text editor, but every single report I ever had to hand in during my time at uni. was typed using vi, with LaTeX markup. Strangely, Word-using lusers often commented how much better my reports looked too =).
And yes, I used graphs, diagrams and bitmaps in my documents as well (using Gnuplot, Xfig and XV respectively... =)
If vi and the command-line oriented LaTeX are too much then I'd recommend a peek at Lyx, though...
Perhaps I should have made that 'once firmly established'. I'm well aware that certain OS projects have been and gone, but there is a certain critical mass which they achieve beyond which I think it's next to impossible to bring them down. The failed projects I'm aware of mostly didn't have wide enough appeal (ie. they were geared towards very specific tasks), or simply not enough people were using them...
Since the KDE has about as wide an appeal as it is possible to have, and also an extremely large existing userbase (if the ftp traffic to their site is to be believed), I think it qualifies under those two criteria at least for an 'established project'... =)
The statement that Miguel makes that 'KDE is basically finished' is completely false, for the same reason that the statement 'Linux is finished' would be. One of the best things about Open Source projects is that, once established, it's extraordinarily difficult (if not impossible) to make them go away.
Firstly, even if the 'core developers' for a project were to give up, there is nearly always someone waiting in the wings to take over from them.
Secondly, a better version of a rival program does not obsolete a project, it merely inspires the users to go out and bring their program up to the newly-established level (eg. If a 'must-have' feature were introduced in Enlightenment, would the Window Maker crew give up? No, they would simply incorporate that feature themselves...). I think that this has to do with the loyalty which Open Source projects inspire in their users and developers. A program which you use or develop is your 'toy' or 'baby', and you're obliged to make it good/better or lose some of your credibility as a programmer. At the same time, it's this unswerving loyalty which cause the 'holy wars' in the Unix world. Your example of C vs C++ is one of these, and whilst I think a large number of hackers prefer C, there are an equal number of (a different kind of) hackers who actually prefer to use C++. This loyalty to C++ as a programming language is likely to give KDE more credibility in some people's eyes.
Thirdly, because money is less of a motivating factor, programs are not dropped because they are 'not profitable' or because a company gos out of business.
As I said at the beginning, if someone were to say 'Linux is finished', we'd all laugh. For many tasks there are better alternatives than Linux, but this inspires Linux users and developers to do better, and hence gain wider usage (drawing from those who would have chosen a different solution before) in general.
No, KDE is far from finished, in fact if anything the existence of the Gnome indirectly ensures that KDE will live on and thrive a lot longer than it may have done otherwise. Because people are constantly talking about the development of the Linux desktop, the KDE is constantly evolving and improving as more and more people get involved and give it a try.
As you say, it's better for both projects that the other exists, since competition drives the development further. Looking at the 'up and coming' features of either project, it's extremely hard to say that one is a clear winner over another, and that's the way I sincerely hope it stays.
I'm not sure I agree with exactly what Jon is saying here. On /. for instance, the shutup software exists in two forms, first there's the moderation/filtering out of flamers/trolls and just downright idiots in the comment forums, and this I appreciate greatly. Secondly, there's the author filtering. I can't help but feel that this creates exactly the sort of balance which is needed, ie. a sort of chaotic democracy. It would be a little bit one-sided if it were possible for a post which you, the average reader, made to be filtered out, and not to give those same reader's the opportunity to filter out the posts (in this case onto the front page) made be the people who run the system, and hence who are in charge of filtering.
It creates a nice sense of evenness and fairness; Despite the fact that CmdrTaco runs the site, I still have the power to remove him from the front page if I want, the same as I have to power to filter out a hoard of other things, be they by article type, comment rating, or any of the other options. I see it more as CmdrTaco (and anyone else who runs a site like his) empowering his readers, instead of the tradition media where you get even *less* choice.
Saying that, I don't use the filtering myself. I may not like someone's style of writing, or even the things which they write about, but at the end of the day it's still worth checking out what they've written, since without you checking and perhaps commenting on what they've said, then they're never going to get any better at it, and they'll keep making the same mistakes over and over. Not to mention the fact that if you filter out a bunch of stuff, you might miss something important, or at least something which appeals to you or touches you personally in some way. Sure, it might not be much, but if you ask me, it's better to keep about an open mind about an article (or anything else), rather than just assuming it'll all be guff before you even click the link.
Here in the UK I would say that among my friends around half (including myself) own MiniDisc equipment. The other half wouldn't say no if they had the cash either.
OK, so it's a little biased since I know a lot of gadget-lovers, but amusing nonetheless...
Making the assumption that this book is in the 'self-help' vein (ie. 'how to run your business better' [tm]), it strikes me that a bit of personal insight on the part of B.G. would be more than a little useful... People reading this want a piece of the MS pie, they dream perhaps of one day being the next Bill themselves (or they're just reviewers ;). To understand how to be as successful, they need to understand why and how MS is successful, not just know that this is in fact the case. In truth it doesn't sound like this book is much more than a list of do and don't recipes for management, it doesn't touch on the why at all.
This is where a bit of insight on B.G.'s part is really essential. He could have given the book a much more personal touch; filled it with personal anecdotes, analyses of situations at MS past and present and what he actually thinks and feels about those events. The word 'character' springs to mind, and if there's one thing I think this book probably proves, it's how characterless our Mr Gates really is (as if we all didn't know already...).
Instead of all this we're presented with this purported managerial panacea which amounts to little more than a todo list. And it's a list any manager could ask his engineers for any day of the week (and for a good few less $$ as well).
Ironically, using either IE or Netscape on a Mac, it still does the same =)
OK... Sure J.K. is the one directly benefitting from this, and when you look at it none-too-closely, he may appear to be getting something for nothing, or something for having done very little, but try and see the bigger picture.
/.? Well, I dunno... I like hearing about the changes which technology (esp. the internet) is having on the world, and that's part of what /. is about, isn't it? Sure, it's not a new microprocessor or some new piece of nanotechnology, but it's a new process (even if it seemed obvious to you before he did, he's proved it's possible now, to the likes of publishers, proof is worth more than spouting a couple of ideas). In many ways, the internet is about challenging the way we look at things today, from the way we shop to the way we converse with one another, this is just another example...
In 'doing what he's done', Katz has proven that to sell a book you don't necessarily have to go through the conventional motions. He went against the grain, did something a little unusual, something in fact that nobody has really done before. And sure, the result is a bit of money in his pocket, he bloody well deserves it! He took a risk and it paid off, that's what life's about.
Now that the risk has paid off for someone, others are sure to follow. He's proved that the conventional avenues for book advertising aren't the be all and end all, and that book publishers should open their eyes a little.
So who benefits? Well, potentially thousands of authors and aspiring authors who would have otherwise gone unpublished, or as Katz says himself, who would have been forced out of publication by sales people only choosing to print a few thousand copies. It's possible then that as a result of that, thousands of people across the world will hear about and read a book which they would not have otherwise read, and some might even enjoy them (And here I don't just mean Katz's one!).
Imagine a situation where you find yourself writing a book, wouldn't you find it useful to know that this sort of thing was possible?
Does this sort of thing belong on
You don't even have to like Katz to see the potential knock-on effect this will have. And even if it doesn't, it'll still be interesting to watch.
And you talk about being selfish and egotistical? The way I see it, if you're out to make a lasting contribution to society (and believe it or not, there *are* people out there-I believe RMS is one of them-who want to make a contribution for non-egotistical reasons...), then in sacrificing children/relationships it might just be possible that that person is being far less selfish than he who merely seeks pleasures for himself within his own lifetime.
What's more admirable, striving to have the best life for yourself, or giving up that (perceived, perhaps) better life in order to ensure that tommorrow the world will be a better place?
I'd rather die knowing that I'd made a tenth of the contribution that someone like RMS has, than simply knowing I'd had a good time...
Oh man, this fscking killed me, now I just wonder what the hell the command does... =)