meeeeeep, wrong. Let me guess, you're from the planet Zonk?
having a gui for an installer doesn't imply it cannot be remote-installed. Or on different clients at once.
it means you have a gui for 1) the technically challenged 2) those who think time-and-effort are not things you should put into an install if what you want is pretty basic.
But it's clear I'm preaching for the wrong crowd, never mind.
Of course. Point taken. And Linux was designed by programmers for programmers.
But you know, lately people have been talking sooooo much about desktop linux, I've started to give my opinion on things like installers, updaters, gui's, what usability means etc etc.
Sometimes maybe not to the right crowd or in the right forum, but hey.
Ever found yourself in the middle of a conversation, realizing that everybody is staring at you? After a few seconds too many of awkward silence, someone finally says, "Well, anyway..." and takes the conversation elsewhere.
This might constitute such a moment. Let me just drip right back to the punchbowl and see how much I can drink without choking on a piece of fruit.
Going from what I use now to XP wouldn't exactly be an upgrade.
It's not really a dependency issue btw, it's about opening up an OS to others than programmers, technicians and hobbyists. Clearly not important though...
1) icon to click that beckons me to "install", 2) window that opens, giving me a readme and links to further information and of course a button to go on or cancel. 3) choose volume to install on, automatic check for available space and compatibility of formatting. 4) option button that when clicked gives me an INTERFACE to tweak some options, choose between clean install (with or without zero level format) and update, choose which optional packages not to install etc etc 5) install now button or bail out button 6) progress bar and some feedback (like eg this could take half an hour)
That is how an installer should be. With an option maybe of bypassing all this and type every install instruction yourself?
OK, I want to introduce you to one writer I really love, who also is a great fiction author, the only writer I know who's equally enjoyable and skilful at both.
But first let me bash up your little list, which to me seems inappropriate for judging fiction books:
Pretentious? I don't care how an author sees himself, as long as I enjoy the writing.
Focused on the stuff the author made up? Well, that's fiction writing for you. I don't see why you would read fiction from a writer who isn't focused on his universe. If you don't like that, stick to non-fiction.
Trying to make up for its bad writing by making some grand political or theological "statement"?
As a rule I don't read bad writing (or try to forget about it as soon as possible) so I can't really help with that either.
But here's my writer for you anyway:
Ian Banks.
You'd be hard pressed to find real statements, he describes things that do make you think a lot about things, but as to conclusions or opinions he mercifully leaves that to you. And besides, the stories are mostly too intriguing and hilarious (not that he writes comedy) to really ponder all this before you've reached the last page.
And bad writing... He's a great author, whether he writes fiction or science fiction.
Try The Firm, Espedair Street or The Wasp Factory (all non-fiction) to see if his style suits you, and then dive into his Culture books. Note that these are not really trilogies or whatever, you can read every one of the Culture books on its own. The only thing they have in common is the setting, the back-drop. But you can read every one of his books in every order you choose and won't regret it. It's the best sci-fi I've ever read and you really can't compare his books to anything else.
iTunes, the music jukebox program sends me to the Apple iTunes music shop, which I find very convenient; iPhoto, the photo album program sends me to Apple's preferred partner, Kodak for album printing, which I also find very convenient.
While I am very wary of MS in general, and loath the way they bullied themselves into some markets, sometimes these rulings seem a bit silly.
Question: What prevents you from removing WMP or MSIE from your XP install? Apple's default settings point to its own programs of course, but I'm free to point them somewhere else (mozilla, entourage, whatever) AND/OR I can throw out what I don't like.
Everything is easy if you already know how to do it.
the thing most linux users and programmers don't get is that 1) people look for simpler than windows. 2) they don't - they really don't - know what you know 3) they don't have a map of their hardware or software infrastructure in their head. 4) they don't care about computers. This one is hardest to get. It has a lot of ramifications. One of them is that one minute spent with the machine in frustration is one too many. They don't want to know why something doesn't work or almost works or did work fine on uncle Ned's machine. They want it to work for them.
And I'm not only talking about Joe Sixpack here. I'm also talking about a lot of people who dual-boot or are power-users on some applications, or do specialized things like video editing, design, architecture, or people who know perfectly well how to manipulate their camera and still don't want to fiddle with their computer afterwards, EVEN IF they spend hours in photoshop or Gimp for that matter.
Business: with Office, Groupware and good company database support.
This will be more or less mainstream pretty soon I think, since the effort is more or less coordinated and has serious backing from major players who still remember when it was cool to snub a mouse or a gui.
Home: iLife, Office, Email, Chat, Video-Chat and a few nice games (think more Tetris than Quake here). Also drrrriver support for all those gizmo's out there, starting with video, camera's, iPods and the like, scanners, printers, cardreaders, but also midi and more esotheric stuff.
This, I really don't see happening soon. There's not a big enough incentive to make this a serious group effort and your average consumer is a fickle beast.
Still, it's nice for Linux to get so much attention.
Seriously, Band in a Box and a heap of other good music programs (not talking about Garageband) for scoring, composing and recording are available and generally work a lot more troublefree than their PC brethren.
Also, every tool he'd wish to hook onto his computer will work guaranteed.
And I bet you as much free beer as you can handle, your uncle WILL remain virus-free.
Linux is hopeless for serious music making, whether you're in electronica or classical music.
PC is cheaper for music making, but more frustrating.
BTW I think the wonderful people of Band in a Box will happily exchange his PC licence for a Mac licence.
After RTFA I thought a bit about his remark on how you never know where an app will be when you make the dock appear. He's right, I used to hover a bit and adjust for the cute scaling effect, and well, it indeed bugged me - albeit in a small way.
So what I did was, I disengaged hiding, disengaged scaling and put the dock to the right of the screen - a bit like a classical NeXT menu.
This actually works great. I always know where my apps are and don't have to second-guess where an app will be after the scaling effect kicks in. Another.1 % of gui frustration reduced. Tatadataaaaa tatataaaa (think A-Team)
I like Togg for his thoughtfulness and prissy usability zealotism, even if I don't completely agree or sometimes don't even bother to think anything else than "So F... What!?"
Let's say this was the case. And let's also say this player and jukebox also play wav and aif and the WMA DRM actually didn't suck.
You're right, WE THE PEOPLE would bitch about it, you bet. Just as - if I may point out - a lot of people bitch about Apple's Fairplay DRM. But I give you that, we'd probably bitch just because it was MS.
But here's the cincher: could you imagine Apple representatives bitch about it the way MS reps do?
That's what makes a lot of people angry. Or at least sarcastic.
Now, about the poor customer: if the past is any indicator, the simplest and most practical solution - as perceived by the majority - will win out in the long run. At the moment it looks like - oops - that'll be the iPod with its non-intrusive DRM (as perceived by the majority), its quality and ease of use in every aspect. That is: the shop, the jukebox, the iPod as a hardware thingy and its software, they all have major sex appeal with everybody, not just geeks and nerds.
It might change, as quality and ease of use isn't everything, but as long as Apple keeps the iPod and the music reasonably priced (as perceived by the majority) they should be fine.
After all, it is about choice and the iTMS store has about the best choice of music. The WMA stores sell the same music, but less of it. And that, that, that is what's it's about here. The iPod is a MUSIC PLAYER. It'll play ALL your CD's, everything you digitize AND ALL the songs you buy in the biggest and most practical shop around. That's the choice that appeals to me - and most people, not which stupid codec is used.
Cheers, and excuse the shouting, didn't feel like html before coffee.
Re:who cares? they're both proprietary formats
on
No WMA for HP iPod
·
· Score: 1
iTunes and the iPod happily support all the mp3's you'd want to throw at them, so you go right ahead and be as fanatical as you like:-)
If you look in the resource files of iTunes you'll see there are Ogg and WMA icons already included.
That doesn't mean Apple *will* support it, but in the past, browsing through icons has been a good indicator of future supported stuff (think ichat AV, wireless keyboards/mice,...)
And on the article, let me just add this: big applause (crapcrapcrapcrapcrapcrapcrapcrapcrap)
I've already mentioned Muzys in my post, no? But hey, acid, fruityloops, musicmaker, rewire, steinbergs crap, whatever.
And yes I mentioned my friend who doesn't have a musical background. I'm not about to discard his work and am not about to adapt my definition of a musician (someone who makes music). BTW like most cut and paste people who stick to it he's bought a keyboard, plugged in his guitar, recorded every sound he could think of and is happily making his own loops.
But when I talked about my other musical friend, the fact that I mentioned they use their computers for scoring should have given you pause.
Scoring on computer is very handy, especially when composing for 20+ musicians, including the horn section, what with all the transposing.
Still, even if you totally misjudged my post, I do acknowledge work by musicians who don't happen to read notes but still do decent stuff.
I can tell they're not on the same plane with my favorite classical composers or jazz musicians, maybe not even with the "regular" musicians I know, but once in a while you hear something that really hits the spot.
True musical talent without solid background is rare, but still that doesn't justify your attitude of judging by tools instead of craftmansship.
Do you really think using ink and paper is better than using computers? I do happen to know of quite a few composers who input on computer. Can you tell the difference of a tree-decended composition or a silicon based one? What about quick notes on napkins later put into bits?
What's wrong with people dabbling a bit with music?
What's wrong with promoting cheapish keyboards so that people who otherwise wouldn't for their life touch one, now will?
If anything, this will boost music production.
A friend of mine can't read a note but has made extremely nice "compositions" on Muzys, another "don't need notes" composer, albeit a bit more grown-up than Garage Band. He has picked it up after trying a Playstation music maker.
Most of my musicians friends use their computers, for scoring, remixing, cut and paste fun, mastering,... you name it. In case you were wondering, almost all of them are "trained" musicians.
Each of the programs they use were heralded as "bringing an end to real music making".
Total bull.
When Apple introduced desktop printing, milions of people DIDN'T become art directors overnight, but the design industry hasn't suffered one bit. And I'm talking mostly for individual designers.
Now that Apple introduces its own music dabbling program (and yes, only adds to the existing heap of looping and composing programs that already are out there for mac and pc) it's suddenly a rich boy's ego game.
Either you need to have some luck with your own music production or you need a girlfriend.
I don't know in how many detail you can set up things like alignment and such, but in order to get it totally right, you should make sure your distances are right - eg. distance between widgets and text. The Apple documentation (GUI guidelines) is perfectly, anally precise in this and should be a great help.
But, back to the important comment: looks really really great! I am praying the kexi database will be included in the port.
pretty please! This would be so great, a good visual DBase app with a serious backbone...
While Filemaker is great - OK, it isn't, really - there is a huuuuge lack of simple but still moderately powerful database apps for the simple stupid mac crowd.
In fact, as far as I can see (disclaimer, I'm not an expert, but I've been looking for quite some time now) there's nothing that comes even close to kexi on the mac.
There are some pricy alternatives, or one could follow courses in actual dbase encoding and programming, but let's not go there...
If you were to port kexi *and* make an easy "typical mac" installer (with the option to install and setup mysql!!!!!) you'd become famous and immortal, I'm pretty sure.
Seriously. Parades, naked people, beer, chanting of your names for hours on end, it could happen!
Slashdot Mirror
meeeeeep, wrong. Let me guess, you're from the planet Zonk?
having a gui for an installer doesn't imply it cannot be remote-installed. Or on different clients at once.
it means you have a gui for
1) the technically challenged
2) those who think time-and-effort are not things you should put into an install if what you want is pretty basic.
But it's clear I'm preaching for the wrong crowd, never mind.
"But for others it will be a horrifying discovery that they're not as l33t as they thought they were."
Yup, that's me. Recognized myself immediately. Thanks, this sort of answers my questions on the subject as well.
Oh well, back to my gui, got my mouse here, yep, all set.
Of course. Point taken. And Linux was designed by programmers for programmers.
But you know, lately people have been talking sooooo much about desktop linux, I've started to give my opinion on things like installers, updaters, gui's, what usability means etc etc.
Sometimes maybe not to the right crowd or in the right forum, but hey.
Ever found yourself in the middle of a conversation, realizing that everybody is staring at you? After a few seconds too many of awkward silence, someone finally says, "Well, anyway..." and takes the conversation elsewhere.
This might constitute such a moment. Let me just drip right back to the punchbowl and see how much I can drink without choking on a piece of fruit.
Going from what I use now to XP wouldn't exactly be an upgrade.
It's not really a dependency issue btw, it's about opening up an OS to others than programmers, technicians and hobbyists. Clearly not important though...
This is A Simple Installer (tm)
1) icon to click that beckons me to "install",
2) window that opens, giving me a readme and links to further information and of course a button to go on or cancel.
3) choose volume to install on, automatic check for available space and compatibility of formatting.
4) option button that when clicked gives me an INTERFACE to tweak some options, choose between clean install (with or without zero level format) and update, choose which optional packages not to install etc etc
5) install now button or bail out button
6) progress bar and some feedback (like eg this could take half an hour)
That is how an installer should be.
With an option maybe of bypassing all this and type every install instruction yourself?
OK, The Firm should be The Business. xcuse me.
OK, I want to introduce you to one writer I really love, who also is a great fiction author, the only writer I know who's equally enjoyable and skilful at both.
But first let me bash up your little list, which to me seems inappropriate for judging fiction books:
Pretentious?
I don't care how an author sees himself, as long as I enjoy the writing.
Focused on the stuff the author made up?
Well, that's fiction writing for you. I don't see why you would read fiction from a writer who isn't focused on his universe. If you don't like that, stick to non-fiction.
Trying to make up for its bad writing by making some grand political or theological "statement"?
As a rule I don't read bad writing (or try to forget about it as soon as possible) so I can't really help with that either.
But here's my writer for you anyway:
Ian Banks.
You'd be hard pressed to find real statements, he describes things that do make you think a lot about things, but as to conclusions or opinions he mercifully leaves that to you. And besides, the stories are mostly too intriguing and hilarious (not that he writes comedy) to really ponder all this before you've reached the last page.
And bad writing... He's a great author, whether he writes fiction or science fiction.
Try The Firm, Espedair Street or The Wasp Factory (all non-fiction) to see if his style suits you, and then dive into his Culture books. Note that these are not really trilogies or whatever, you can read every one of the Culture books on its own. The only thing they have in common is the setting, the back-drop. But you can read every one of his books in every order you choose and won't regret it. It's the best sci-fi I've ever read and you really can't compare his books to anything else.
OK, I get it.
iTunes, the music jukebox program sends me to the Apple iTunes music shop, which I find very convenient;
iPhoto, the photo album program sends me to Apple's preferred partner, Kodak for album printing, which I also find very convenient.
While I am very wary of MS in general, and loath the way they bullied themselves into some markets, sometimes these rulings seem a bit silly.
Question:
What prevents you from removing WMP or MSIE from your XP install?
Apple's default settings point to its own programs of course, but I'm free to point them somewhere else (mozilla, entourage, whatever)
AND/OR I can throw out what I don't like.
How is that different on XP?
Everything is easy if you already know how to do it.
the thing most linux users and programmers don't get is that
1) people look for simpler than windows.
2) they don't - they really don't - know what you know
3) they don't have a map of their hardware or software infrastructure in their head.
4) they don't care about computers. This one is hardest to get. It has a lot of ramifications. One of them is that one minute spent with the machine in frustration is one too many. They don't want to know why something doesn't work or almost works or did work fine on uncle Ned's machine. They want it to work for them.
And I'm not only talking about Joe Sixpack here. I'm also talking about a lot of people who dual-boot or are power-users on some applications, or do specialized things like video editing, design, architecture, or people who know perfectly well how to manipulate their camera and still don't want to fiddle with their computer afterwards, EVEN IF they spend hours in photoshop or Gimp for that matter.
Business: with Office, Groupware and good company database support.
This will be more or less mainstream pretty soon I think, since the effort is more or less coordinated and has serious backing from major players who still remember when it was cool to snub a mouse or a gui.
Home: iLife, Office, Email, Chat, Video-Chat and a few nice games (think more Tetris than Quake here). Also drrrriver support for all those gizmo's out there, starting with video, camera's, iPods and the like, scanners, printers, cardreaders, but also midi and more esotheric stuff.
This, I really don't see happening soon. There's not a big enough incentive to make this a serious group effort and your average consumer is a fickle beast.
Still, it's nice for Linux to get so much attention.
Why not give him a mac?
Seriously, Band in a Box and a heap of other good music programs (not talking about Garageband) for scoring, composing and recording are available and generally work a lot more troublefree than their PC brethren.
Also, every tool he'd wish to hook onto his computer will work guaranteed.
And I bet you as much free beer as you can handle, your uncle WILL remain virus-free.
Linux is hopeless for serious music making, whether you're in electronica or classical music.
PC is cheaper for music making, but more frustrating.
BTW I think the wonderful people of Band in a Box will happily exchange his PC licence for a Mac licence.
Cheers
I say: "Bring 'em On!" ;-)
After RTFA I thought a bit about his remark on how you never know where an app will be when you make the dock appear. He's right, I used to hover a bit and adjust for the cute scaling effect, and well, it indeed bugged me - albeit in a small way.
.1 % of gui frustration reduced. Tatadataaaaa tatataaaa (think A-Team)
So what I did was, I disengaged hiding, disengaged scaling and put the dock to the right of the screen - a bit like a classical NeXT menu.
This actually works great. I always know where my apps are and don't have to second-guess where an app will be after the scaling effect kicks in. Another
I like Togg for his thoughtfulness and prissy usability zealotism, even if I don't completely agree or sometimes don't even bother to think anything else than "So F... What!?"
Let's say this was the case. And let's also say this player and jukebox also play wav and aif and the WMA DRM actually didn't suck.
You're right, WE THE PEOPLE would bitch about it, you bet. Just as - if I may point out - a lot of people bitch about Apple's Fairplay DRM. But I give you that, we'd probably bitch just because it was MS.
But here's the cincher: could you imagine Apple representatives bitch about it the way MS reps do?
That's what makes a lot of people angry. Or at least sarcastic.
Now, about the poor customer: if the past is any indicator, the simplest and most practical solution - as perceived by the majority - will win out in the long run. At the moment it looks like - oops - that'll be the iPod with its non-intrusive DRM (as perceived by the majority), its quality and ease of use in every aspect. That is: the shop, the jukebox, the iPod as a hardware thingy and its software, they all have major sex appeal with everybody, not just geeks and nerds.
It might change, as quality and ease of use isn't everything, but as long as Apple keeps the iPod and the music reasonably priced (as perceived by the majority) they should be fine.
After all, it is about choice and the iTMS store has about the best choice of music. The WMA stores sell the same music, but less of it. And that, that, that is what's it's about here. The iPod is a MUSIC PLAYER. It'll play ALL your CD's, everything you digitize AND ALL the songs you buy in the biggest and most practical shop around. That's the choice that appeals to me - and most people, not which stupid codec is used.
Cheers, and excuse the shouting, didn't feel like html before coffee.
iTunes and the iPod happily support all the mp3's you'd want to throw at them, so you go right ahead and be as fanatical as you like :-)
If you look in the resource files of iTunes you'll see there are Ogg and WMA icons already included.
...)
That doesn't mean Apple *will* support it, but in the past, browsing through icons has been a good indicator of future supported stuff (think ichat AV, wireless keyboards/mice,
And on the article, let me just add this: big applause (crapcrapcrapcrapcrapcrapcrapcrapcrap)
No more belgian waffles for you. Bad boy!
As a theory it sure beats dark matter.
- Uh, our calculations are off. We can't see why, but it affects gravity.
- So, like, if we put in some more stuff, that like maybe is invisible?
- Hey, yeah! And we'll call it dark stuff, or matter, yeah!
- Good one, now pass the dutchie.
I've already mentioned Muzys in my post, no? But hey, acid, fruityloops, musicmaker, rewire, steinbergs crap, whatever.
And yes I mentioned my friend who doesn't have a musical background. I'm not about to discard his work and am not about to adapt my definition of a musician (someone who makes music). BTW like most cut and paste people who stick to it he's bought a keyboard, plugged in his guitar, recorded every sound he could think of and is happily making his own loops.
But when I talked about my other musical friend, the fact that I mentioned they use their computers for scoring should have given you pause.
Scoring on computer is very handy, especially when composing for 20+ musicians, including the horn section, what with all the transposing.
Still, even if you totally misjudged my post, I do acknowledge work by musicians who don't happen to read notes but still do decent stuff.
I can tell they're not on the same plane with my favorite classical composers or jazz musicians, maybe not even with the "regular" musicians I know, but once in a while you hear something that really hits the spot.
True musical talent without solid background is rare, but still that doesn't justify your attitude of judging by tools instead of craftmansship.
Do you really think using ink and paper is better than using computers? I do happen to know of quite a few composers who input on computer. Can you tell the difference of a tree-decended composition or a silicon based one?
What about quick notes on napkins later put into bits?
Are we talking crap here? Yes we are.
Pepsi pays every song at full retail price, but only those that are actually cashed in.
That's very cheap in advertising dollars, considering they can associate themselves with music, internet, hip... without doing the effort.
You my friend, sound like a total elitist ass.
... you name it. In case you were wondering, almost all of them are "trained" musicians.
What's wrong with people dabbling a bit with music?
What's wrong with promoting cheapish keyboards so that people who otherwise wouldn't for their life touch one, now will?
If anything, this will boost music production.
A friend of mine can't read a note but has made extremely nice "compositions" on Muzys, another "don't need notes" composer, albeit a bit more grown-up than Garage Band. He has picked it up after trying a Playstation music maker.
Most of my musicians friends use their computers, for scoring, remixing, cut and paste fun, mastering,
Each of the programs they use were heralded as "bringing an end to real music making".
Total bull.
When Apple introduced desktop printing, milions of people DIDN'T become art directors overnight, but the design industry hasn't suffered one bit. And I'm talking mostly for individual designers.
Now that Apple introduces its own music dabbling program (and yes, only adds to the existing heap of looping and composing programs that already are out there for mac and pc) it's suddenly a rich boy's ego game.
Either you need to have some luck with your own music production or you need a girlfriend.
Well hurray for Indian Linux developers...
(not every linux user lives in the US)
Looks really really great!
I don't know in how many detail you can set up things like alignment and such, but in order to get it totally right, you should make sure your distances are right - eg. distance between widgets and text. The Apple documentation (GUI guidelines) is perfectly, anally precise in this and should be a great help.
But, back to the important comment: looks really really great! I am praying the kexi database will be included in the port.
pretty please! This would be so great, a good visual DBase app with a serious backbone...
While Filemaker is great - OK, it isn't, really - there is a huuuuge lack of simple but still moderately powerful database apps for the simple stupid mac crowd.
In fact, as far as I can see (disclaimer, I'm not an expert, but I've been looking for quite some time now) there's nothing that comes even close to kexi on the mac.
There are some pricy alternatives, or one could follow courses in actual dbase encoding and programming, but let's not go there...
If you were to port kexi *and* make an easy "typical mac" installer (with the option to install and setup mysql!!!!!) you'd become famous and immortal, I'm pretty sure.
Seriously. Parades, naked people, beer, chanting of your names for hours on end, it could happen!