Quality and responsibility are in the eye of the beholder, not the creator.
If the software offers more hassle than benefit, then no matter how good the raw code quality may be, the software is not high quality in the eyes of that person. Similarly, if you wrote it and released it upon the world, then you are responsible for its perceived quality, regardless of whether you did it as a free project on your own time or whether you got paid to write it.
Like it or not, fair or not, that's how users see it, and until you address that point of view adequately, don't expect or ask users to stop complaining about your stuff.
No, that is not it, and you just don't get it... it isn't about having knowledge, it's about finding it. Asking a FAQ on a mailing list should get you flamed any where. "Asking" stupid questions like "I installed OpenBSD on my Dell but got no sound k thnx" sould also.
All anyone on misc@openbsd ever asks is that you do your homework (read the FAQ, search the archives, serch google), and if that fails then ask an intelligent question.
Actually, you and nearly all geeks just don't get it. Most non-geek people don't even know where to start looking or how to find the answers for themselves, so it's not their fault for asking "stupid" questions. They have to start somewhere, and the most obvious way and place is the e-mail list associated with the thing they are having trouble with.
Besides that, when newbies post vague or uninformed questions, it's not because they are looking for an answer. They are looking for a person to step in and solve their problem for them end-to-end, not a single answer to a single problem that is only one part of a larger hassle. In short, non-geeks just expect shit to work without hassle, and when it doesn't, they expect the people who created the shit to take responsibility for making it work. Non-geeks don't WANT to learn or to be educated -- what they want is for shit to work. And it's wrong to belittle them or look down upon them for holding those priorities. Instead, you should be catering to those priorities.
And why is it wrong to belittle or look down on those people who just want it to work without hassle? Because if you, the GEEK, stop and think about it, you actually want the same thing. Sure, you may love coding and problem-solving, and you may know Linux like the back of your hand, but I'm sure that even you can think of an instance in which you got PO'd at some other piece of software you were simply trying to install and use to get something else done when it didn't work smoothly and you had to go off on a 2-hour sidetrack to deal with that instead of getting your originally intended goal accomplished. So yeah, you're really not so different from the non-geeks after all. Chew on that for a while.
It would seem that despite the rants of anger towards Microsoft that they were unfairly bundling Windows Media Player with Windows XP, the public at large would not seem to agree and is not actually demanding any such stripped down version.
At what point was this not obvious?
Most consumers don't see the bundling as a bad thing. Most of them actually want their OS to include a media player by default -- that's why Microsoft put it in there. The EU didn't do this to protect consumers. The EU did this simply to demonstrate their power over a huge company, to try to send a message and put Microsoft in its place.
Isn't it interesting how the loudest whiners against Microsoft's bundling choices have been companies that legitimately competed and lost? For example, Real has repeatedly whined about Microsoft causing them to lose sales and marketshare during the late 90's, but anyone who actually used and objectively compared Windows Media Player with RealPlayer knows that the reason Real lost was because they made a shittier product, not because of anything Microsoft did. Similarly, anyone who actually used and compared Netscape 5.0 and IE 5.0 knows that IE5 was just more stable and faster.
Suppose something better than Windows Media Player came along. Most people would simply download it. They wouldn't keep using Windows Media Player just because it's what came with the OS. You even have a real-life example of this with Firefox versus IE. It just goes to show you how asinine all these arguments are against Microsoft's bundling, and how insulting it is to users to assume they are so sheeplike that they won't use anything that didn't come preinstalled.
Re:DivX 6 is Out...for Windows 2000/XP.
on
DivX 6.0 is Out
·
· Score: 1
Well that's all fine and dandy, but apparently the only free implementation on the Windows platform anywhere is the GPL'ed x264 project, which isn't even close to usable for everyday purposes from the looks of things.
Is there a free (as in beer) H.264 video codec for Windows that adheres to the standard Windows codec model so that it can be used with programs like VirtualDub? If not, I fail to see the benefit, regardless of how technically superior the algorithm may be.
Re:DivX 6 is Out...for Windows 2000/XP.
on
DivX 6.0 is Out
·
· Score: 1
I keep seeing people here referring to H.264. What the hell is H.264 and where does one get it?
Apparently you have never heard the phrase, "the code is the documentation". Like it or not, a lot of companies live by this to at least some degree and operate just fine internally with such a policy.
Besides which, the point is that internal documentation is substantially different from documentation you would publicly release. There are intellectual property, liability, and other legal concerns that must be thoroughly reviewed before documentation could be publicly released. That takes a lot of time and is very expensive.
Because it would cost them money to (1) write coherent and complete documentation and (2) review that documentation to make it safe and legal for public consumption. Why would they spend all the extra time and money to do that when it doesn't bring them any more profit?
Companies exist to make money, not to be good samaritans.
Configuring a new printer driver without having to resort to a command line.
Installing a new 3D graphics board without having to resort to a command line.
Reading documentation about any aspect of the software without having to look up 400 technical terms that the documentation author stupidly assumed you would already know.
The fact that Linux isn't much of a commercialized operating system, and you can accomplish day-to-day tasks without too many hassles is an advantage in itself
Is this fool smoking crack or what? He IS talking about LINUX here, isn't he?
I sometimes stick personal appointments into my Outlook calendar at work, but for the most part, I simply don't keep a to-do list or a datebook or anything like that.
I've found over the years that if I start compiling things into a "to-do" list or a schedule, then I'm more inclined (not less) to miss things or not do things, because they have officially become more of a nuissance by being on a list of things I feel obligated to do. When I just keep track of things mentally instead, then it doesn't feel like it's hanging over my head all the time and I feel like I can do it whenever I damn well please, which makes it more likely to actually get done.
I don't understand how so many geeks can be falling for all this recent hype about multi-core CPUs. A system running a dual-core CPU is really no different than a dual-CPU system.
Multi-CPU systems have been around for ages. Sure, by putting multiple cores on a single die, the interconnects between the processors can be made faster, etc, but the performance difference between that and multiple single-core CPUs has really got to be pretty negligible.
As everyone should know by now, adding more CPUs doesn't necessarily yield any performance boost because software has to be specifically designed and written to take advantage of multiple CPUs well. There are very few end-user applications or needs which would lend themselves well to multiprocessing. It's not like throwing more RAM into a system, or adding disks to a RAID array.
As far as I can conclude, all the hype and news about multi-core CPUs is mostly smoke-and-mirrors marketing by the CPU manufacturers to try to get the consumer base excited over nothing, since the CPU manufacturers have run into a brick wall in terms of clock speeds and can't offer anything BUT parallelism as a next step.
Unless consoles start shipping by default with high-quality mice and keyboards for FPS games, strategy games, and text chat during a game, I don't see them ever killing off PC gaming.
- We buy shit we don't need.
- We throw it away.
- It pollutes the earth.
- The environment becomes inhospitable.
- We run out of natural resources.
- We can't make any more stuff.
- We can't survive the polluted environment.
- We all die out.
- Millions of years elapse.
- We are replaced by something smarter.
I would like to see high-powered plastic explosives added to cell phones. That way when someone is being obnoxious on their phone in a public place, I can hit a button on my phone that will cause their phone to explode.
That's because "happiness" isn't exactly the right thing to measure, and you can't rely on self-reporting of that measurement.
Example: I'm extremely intelligent, and extremely aware of large-scale goings-on in the world, and as a result I am realistically pessimistic about people and the long-term survival of the human race. If you ask me if I am happy, I will tell you I am. Even though I think the world and people around me suck, I don't sit around moping about it all the time. I accept that it sucks, complain about it when I feel so compelled, accept that it's really all beyond my control anyway, and go on about my life.
And yet I am not an oblivious care-free outgoing social butterfly just looking for a good time wherever I can find it. An outside observer comparing me to such a person would likely conclude that I am not as happy as that person, even though each of us would both report ourselves as being happy people.
Slashdot Mirror
you are getting high quality code for free
Quality and responsibility are in the eye of the beholder, not the creator.
If the software offers more hassle than benefit, then no matter how good the raw code quality may be, the software is not high quality in the eyes of that person. Similarly, if you wrote it and released it upon the world, then you are responsible for its perceived quality, regardless of whether you did it as a free project on your own time or whether you got paid to write it.
Like it or not, fair or not, that's how users see it, and until you address that point of view adequately, don't expect or ask users to stop complaining about your stuff.
No, that is not it, and you just don't get it... it isn't about having knowledge, it's about finding it. Asking a FAQ on a mailing list should get you flamed any where. "Asking" stupid questions like "I installed OpenBSD on my Dell but got no sound k thnx" sould also.
All anyone on misc@openbsd ever asks is that you do your homework (read the FAQ, search the archives, serch google), and if that fails then ask an intelligent question.
Actually, you and nearly all geeks just don't get it. Most non-geek people don't even know where to start looking or how to find the answers for themselves, so it's not their fault for asking "stupid" questions. They have to start somewhere, and the most obvious way and place is the e-mail list associated with the thing they are having trouble with.
Besides that, when newbies post vague or uninformed questions, it's not because they are looking for an answer. They are looking for a person to step in and solve their problem for them end-to-end, not a single answer to a single problem that is only one part of a larger hassle. In short, non-geeks just expect shit to work without hassle, and when it doesn't, they expect the people who created the shit to take responsibility for making it work. Non-geeks don't WANT to learn or to be educated -- what they want is for shit to work. And it's wrong to belittle them or look down upon them for holding those priorities. Instead, you should be catering to those priorities.
And why is it wrong to belittle or look down on those people who just want it to work without hassle? Because if you, the GEEK, stop and think about it, you actually want the same thing. Sure, you may love coding and problem-solving, and you may know Linux like the back of your hand, but I'm sure that even you can think of an instance in which you got PO'd at some other piece of software you were simply trying to install and use to get something else done when it didn't work smoothly and you had to go off on a 2-hour sidetrack to deal with that instead of getting your originally intended goal accomplished. So yeah, you're really not so different from the non-geeks after all. Chew on that for a while.
For some reason, geeks seem to have this innate need to build shit that no one needs and no one asked for.
Why not spend your time doing something that's actually useful, such as, say, making Linux easier to use?
It would seem that despite the rants of anger towards Microsoft that they were unfairly bundling Windows Media Player with Windows XP, the public at large would not seem to agree and is not actually demanding any such stripped down version.
At what point was this not obvious?
Most consumers don't see the bundling as a bad thing. Most of them actually want their OS to include a media player by default -- that's why Microsoft put it in there. The EU didn't do this to protect consumers. The EU did this simply to demonstrate their power over a huge company, to try to send a message and put Microsoft in its place.
Isn't it interesting how the loudest whiners against Microsoft's bundling choices have been companies that legitimately competed and lost? For example, Real has repeatedly whined about Microsoft causing them to lose sales and marketshare during the late 90's, but anyone who actually used and objectively compared Windows Media Player with RealPlayer knows that the reason Real lost was because they made a shittier product, not because of anything Microsoft did. Similarly, anyone who actually used and compared Netscape 5.0 and IE 5.0 knows that IE5 was just more stable and faster.
Suppose something better than Windows Media Player came along. Most people would simply download it. They wouldn't keep using Windows Media Player just because it's what came with the OS. You even have a real-life example of this with Firefox versus IE. It just goes to show you how asinine all these arguments are against Microsoft's bundling, and how insulting it is to users to assume they are so sheeplike that they won't use anything that didn't come preinstalled.
Well that's all fine and dandy, but apparently the only free implementation on the Windows platform anywhere is the GPL'ed x264 project, which isn't even close to usable for everyday purposes from the looks of things.
Is there a free (as in beer) H.264 video codec for Windows that adheres to the standard Windows codec model so that it can be used with programs like VirtualDub? If not, I fail to see the benefit, regardless of how technically superior the algorithm may be.
I keep seeing people here referring to H.264. What the hell is H.264 and where does one get it?
Apparently you have never heard the phrase, "the code is the documentation". Like it or not, a lot of companies live by this to at least some degree and operate just fine internally with such a policy.
Besides which, the point is that internal documentation is substantially different from documentation you would publicly release. There are intellectual property, liability, and other legal concerns that must be thoroughly reviewed before documentation could be publicly released. That takes a lot of time and is very expensive.
Because it would cost them money to (1) write coherent and complete documentation and (2) review that documentation to make it safe and legal for public consumption. Why would they spend all the extra time and money to do that when it doesn't bring them any more profit?
Companies exist to make money, not to be good samaritans.
Configuring a new printer driver without having to resort to a command line.
Installing a new 3D graphics board without having to resort to a command line.
Reading documentation about any aspect of the software without having to look up 400 technical terms that the documentation author stupidly assumed you would already know.
The fact that Linux isn't much of a commercialized operating system, and you can accomplish day-to-day tasks without too many hassles is an advantage in itself
Is this fool smoking crack or what? He IS talking about LINUX here, isn't he?
How can a computer geek relate the evil in patenting algorithms to a non-computer geek to where it will have an effective impact?
A solid kick to the groin ought to do the trick.
I sometimes stick personal appointments into my Outlook calendar at work, but for the most part, I simply don't keep a to-do list or a datebook or anything like that.
I've found over the years that if I start compiling things into a "to-do" list or a schedule, then I'm more inclined (not less) to miss things or not do things, because they have officially become more of a nuissance by being on a list of things I feel obligated to do. When I just keep track of things mentally instead, then it doesn't feel like it's hanging over my head all the time and I feel like I can do it whenever I damn well please, which makes it more likely to actually get done.
I don't understand how so many geeks can be falling for all this recent hype about multi-core CPUs. A system running a dual-core CPU is really no different than a dual-CPU system.
Multi-CPU systems have been around for ages. Sure, by putting multiple cores on a single die, the interconnects between the processors can be made faster, etc, but the performance difference between that and multiple single-core CPUs has really got to be pretty negligible.
As everyone should know by now, adding more CPUs doesn't necessarily yield any performance boost because software has to be specifically designed and written to take advantage of multiple CPUs well. There are very few end-user applications or needs which would lend themselves well to multiprocessing. It's not like throwing more RAM into a system, or adding disks to a RAID array.
As far as I can conclude, all the hype and news about multi-core CPUs is mostly smoke-and-mirrors marketing by the CPU manufacturers to try to get the consumer base excited over nothing, since the CPU manufacturers have run into a brick wall in terms of clock speeds and can't offer anything BUT parallelism as a next step.
According to a large-scale survey of scientific misbehavior, 15% admit to changing a study under pressure from a funding source.
In other news, the scientists who conducted the survey are now admitting they fabricated the survey results.
Scientists have constructed a software capable of simulating organisms at the molecular, single-cell and population levels.
Am I the only one who had to read that thrice to verify that it in fact did not say "orgasms"?
Imagine the military applications of software capable of simulating orgasms at the population level!
Maybe I just need caffeine.
Unless consoles start shipping by default with high-quality mice and keyboards for FPS games, strategy games, and text chat during a game, I don't see them ever killing off PC gaming.
...is YOUR woody secure?
The existing system already works fine:
- We buy shit we don't need.
- We throw it away.
- It pollutes the earth.
- The environment becomes inhospitable.
- We run out of natural resources.
- We can't make any more stuff.
- We can't survive the polluted environment.
- We all die out.
- Millions of years elapse.
- We are replaced by something smarter.
Very few situations are made worse by the unexpected arrival of a cold beer
How about an AA meeting?
What the hell are you talking about?
Instead of "My Computer," it will be just just plain simple "Computer".
Clearly, Microsoft is a great innovator.
No, seriously, this is a bad move -- "Computer" isn't nearly condescending enough on its own to make users feel effectively ridiculed.
What else can you add to a cell phone?
I would like to see high-powered plastic explosives added to cell phones. That way when someone is being obnoxious on their phone in a public place, I can hit a button on my phone that will cause their phone to explode.
I'm sorry, but "Jesus Christ on a Stick" has already been patented by my company. Prepare to be sued.
That's because "happiness" isn't exactly the right thing to measure, and you can't rely on self-reporting of that measurement.
Example: I'm extremely intelligent, and extremely aware of large-scale goings-on in the world, and as a result I am realistically pessimistic about people and the long-term survival of the human race. If you ask me if I am happy, I will tell you I am. Even though I think the world and people around me suck, I don't sit around moping about it all the time. I accept that it sucks, complain about it when I feel so compelled, accept that it's really all beyond my control anyway, and go on about my life.
And yet I am not an oblivious care-free outgoing social butterfly just looking for a good time wherever I can find it. An outside observer comparing me to such a person would likely conclude that I am not as happy as that person, even though each of us would both report ourselves as being happy people.
Clearly you missed my sarcasm.