Linux isn't as hard to use as you think; you should have a look at it sometime.
Linux has never been able to pass the Mom test. This is as true today as ever was.
Recall the tanking of Nautilus. Because the code was GPL, development went on and users continued to use and improve the software.
And this is a good thing why? The people who worked for Eazel lost their jobs because their company had no viable business plan. Two things will come of this: either companies with no viable business plan will continue to go out of business, or companies will stop trying to move ahead with non-viable business plans. Either option is very bad for those who advocate the GPL above all else.
Yes, the remnants of Eazel are still out there, like debris from a plane crash. That doesn't make the crash any less a bad thing.
lack of really easy installation/dependency resolution/deinstallation of software
Oh, yes, I agree completely. The best possible solution for this would be Apple's approach: most applications don't require any installation at all. You just drag a package (which is actually a directory full of stuff, but acts through the UI like a single object) to wherever you want to keep it. Double-clicking the package launches the program.
Daemons, OS components, and other non-application software is a little more complex, but it doesn't necessarily have to be.
Lack of familiarity
See, this is the difference between easy to use and easy to learn. A computer that's hard to use but familiar to the user becomes easy to use. (Did that make sense?) So a computer that's hard to use but easy to learn can still make it on the desktop. But Linux is neither. It's neither easy to use-- that is, familiar-- nor easy to learn.
I guess we could try co-opting this discussion. Since nobody wants to talk about iPod stands (seeing as how mine is lying here on the desk next to me and all).
Hey, everybody! Fox has cancelled Firefly. Here's what Joss Whedon wrote about it in a post to a message board this morning:
Four AM. Can't sleep. Who'd have thought?
There's a couple of things I'd like to say. And a few things I really can't. First of all, I'm prouder of this show and the people I worked with on it than I can express in words, monkey noises, or hyroglyphics. I believe this has been some fairly great TV. And the experience of making it... I've had crew members who've been working for 20 years say they've never worked around such excitement, support and love. You walk on that set, you're transported. The cast: 9 count 'em 9 incredibly talented actors who are all decent, wonderful people. This phenomenon cannot be explained by science.
Second of all, don't think for a second that I have given up on this show. I think it has been mistreated shamefully, but the Fox network has indicated that they would not stand in the way (which they can) of my finding a new home for the show. That's no easy prospect. But I will do everything in my power, as always, to keep this bird in the air. Of course I'll post if there's any news.
But even if the show goes back up elsewhere, I'm going to lose a good portion of my crew. Production will halt, they'll need to find new jobs. You can't imagine how that feels. How much they brought to the table, how hard and well they worked. And their Christmas bonus is this. As much as the cast, the staff, and my not so secret lover Minear, I honor those guys, and hope to get them back on board.
So for now, I proudly take my place beside Profit, The Ben Stiller Show, the Tick, and Action. But I won't rest until I've found safe harbour (no, not the Gregory Harrison show) for this vessel.
I've got the time.
It ain't like I'm sleeping.
I know a lot of people didn't like Firefly, but it still had a loyal, if outnumbered, following. It'll be missed.
So let me get this straight. This article gets posted, but my article about today's announcement that Firefly has been cancelled was rejected five minutes after I submitted it.
Bring on the Off-topic mods. This just makes no sense.
I already answered all of your points the first time I posted. To go on would just be reiteration for the sake of reiteration. I just don't see any reason to get into a "nuh-uh" "uh-huh" argument with you over this. We each have valid opinions, but we don't agree.
All I really will say on the subject is this: Linux is not popular as a desktop operating system, and no big company is working successfully on making it into one. Of the small companies that are trying to do so, just as many have failed (remember Eazel?) as haven't. My opinion is that there must be some reason for these facts, and I told you what I think those reasons are.
Finally, I just don't appreciate a post that I spent a lot of time thinking about-- trying to see the issue from all sides, trying to be objective-- called FUD and a troll. That's just annoying, and I think you're better than that.
This is out of character for you. I expect to hear unpopular opinions labeled "troll" by ACs and other bastards, but not by one such as yourself. Be ashamed.
That's a shame. But you've gotta admit that the campfire scene where Picard tells the alien captain the story of Gilgamesh is really amazing stuff. And when the alien captain finally... well, you know. Pretty great moment all around. One of the best Picard episodes.
Re:It all went downhill when Gene died
on
Critics Pan Nemesis
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
For that matter, why did Data have to get that stupid emotion chip? I never thought his whole quest to become human thing was all that interesting.
While the way it was handled in the end days was dreadful, Data's fascination with and envy of humanity was the most interesting thing about him. Without that aspect of his character, he's literally just a robot.
I think that's why Picard is such a good Captain, for that matter - that slightly inhuman quality he has, the almost limitless self control and focus.
Oh, balls. Some of the very best episodes-- "Darmok," "The Inner Light," "Family," "The Perfect Mate," "Sarek"-- were the ones where Picard let down his guard. In those episodes we saw friendship, love, grief, rage, the whole gamut that flesh is heir to. The fact that he's stoic doesn't mean he's emotionless. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Also, time travel violates causality. It shouldn't be allowed. Period.
Never lose sight of the fact that Star Trek is meant to be entertaining. That's all, that's where it starts and ends. If a time-travel story is entertaining, tell it. Hell, "The City on the Edge of Forever" was arguably the very best episode of the original series, and up there with some of the best science fiction ever. What shouldn't be allowed is stories that fail to entertain, for whatever reason. If time travel is entertaining, go with it. If it's not, don't. That's the rule.
I'm confused. Is there some reason why this job can't best be done with a content balancer? It's been about a year since I looked at them, but last I recall Cisco's Local Directors were very highly regarded. They had intelligent session-level balancing and such, and worked well.
You're right that economics (in the long run) is zero-sum.
Oops. That's not true. Economics is the textbook example of a non-zero-sum game. Consider Van Gogh's "Sunflowers." He took some paint, some wood, and some canvas and made something that is worth millions upon millions of dollars. Another person given the exact same tools and materials might produce a work that's worth a hundred bucks. Another person might produce something that's actually worth less than the value of the materials that went into it.
Or consider another example: food. A meal in a restaurant costs $X. The exact same set of ingredients, prepared poorly, can result in an inedible mess, value $0.
Value is created and destroyed every day. The economy is about as non-zero-sum as it gets.
What exactly is it about the GPL that seems to just scare the shit out of most commercial developers?
The part about how you have to give away your source code for free to anybody who asks for it, even if you so much as link to a GPL-licensed library at compile time. I'm pretty sure that's it.
Besides, who needs the headache of working with the GPL when there are perfectly good BSD-licensed alternatives available? That's why you see commercial (and widely used) operating systems incorporating BSD code, but not GPL code.
it might not be a stretch to say First Contact is the highlight of his career.
You obviously have a much higher opinion of that film than I do. Myself, I would have picked a little film like "L.A. Confidential," maybe. But if you're talking about high points up to then, how can you ignore his turn as Monsieur Perrier's chauffeur in "Murder By Death?" A triumph!
Which is pretty scary because it implies that everything you remember from TNG may not have happened now
Yeah, exactly. That's the cool thing about it. Depending on what happens in "Enterprise," the events of "The Next Generation" and beyond may or may not come to pass. I wish they had played a little more with this idea instead of going all time-travel on us. But that's kind of the mode for Star Trek on television: no consequences. No matter what happens during the first 47 minutes of the 48-minute episode, everything will be back to normal by the time the closing credits roll. "It was all a transporter hallucination," my ass.
What accounts for the purchasing of systems from Dell or Gateway and the challenges of Linux on the desktop is that most end users are cheap and dumb.
Arrogant much?
Re:I wonder how much of this is quality . . .
on
Critics Pan Nemesis
·
· Score: 2
Even Rama Revealed was worth waiting for, although it got very strange in the end.
You know, I gave up halfway through "Garden;" it wasn't at all what I was looking for. But I've always wondered how the whole "Rama" sequel saga ended. Spoil it for me, will you? Does the third book explain who the Ramans were, where Rama was going, or any of the big questions left unanswered by "Rendezvous?"
The site travelocity.com is running Netscape-Enterprise/4.1 on Solaris 8.
The HTTP server, sure. The actual applications are running on lots and lots of SGIs. If I remember correctly, Travelocity was buying a few new 32-processor SGI systems every quarter for several years.
The Original Star Trek (OST) was written in 1965 and spoon-fed to NBC as a "wagon train to the stars", which means NBC viewed it as a futuristic western
Actually, I'm pretty sure NBC viewed it as a futuristic version of the previous season's most profitable show. It would be like a TV producer pitching a show today as "'Friends' in space," or "a sci-fi 'West Wing.'"
Re:I wonder how much of this is quality . . .
on
Critics Pan Nemesis
·
· Score: 2
I respectfully disagree. "Rama" was a great book, but it would make a pretty dull movie. It's all talking, and little conflict or peril. I'd love to see it done 2001-style with lots of quiet scenes and awe-inspiring special effects, but I doubt it would be particularly successful, and if it doesn't look to be successful, a studio probably wouldn't do a very good job with it.
Unless, of course, they give it the "Solaris" treatment. I still hold that "Solaris" is one of the best movies of the year, and a "Rama" movie in the same style would be a great thing.
Re:It all went downhill when Gene died
on
Critics Pan Nemesis
·
· Score: 5, Informative
...now Enterprise can't keep its story consistant with the events of the Kirk era that happen 100 years later.
Far be it from me to be an "Enterprise" apologist, but I remember reading somewhere that there's an official explanation for this in the writers' guide or something. The story goes that when the events of "First Contact" happened, the time line forked in a serious way, due to the fact that Zephram Cochrane (or whatever his name was-- you know, Farmer Hoggett) was exposed to 24th century technology. The time line of "Enterprise" isn't the same as the time line of the original Star Trek, "The Next Generation," and so on.
That's actually kind of a neat idea, and a new and different way of pressing the reset button on the whole Star Trek universe. I really wish they'd taken that idea more seriously, tying the series premiere closely to "First Contact," instead of doing the tired and nonsensical "temporal cold war" thing.
Not that "Enterprise" wouldn't still suck, but at least it would make a little more sense in context of all the other Star Trek stories out there.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux isn't as hard to use as you think; you should have a look at it sometime.
Linux has never been able to pass the Mom test. This is as true today as ever was.
Recall the tanking of Nautilus. Because the code was GPL, development went on and users continued to use and improve the software.
And this is a good thing why? The people who worked for Eazel lost their jobs because their company had no viable business plan. Two things will come of this: either companies with no viable business plan will continue to go out of business, or companies will stop trying to move ahead with non-viable business plans. Either option is very bad for those who advocate the GPL above all else.
Yes, the remnants of Eazel are still out there, like debris from a plane crash. That doesn't make the crash any less a bad thing.
Consider it done. Hey, when did comments in journals become disabled by default? I don't recall having to enable them before.
The journal article is here.
everything I like is being cancelled this year: Firefly, Futurama (well, the F's I guess).
Don't forget Farscape. Can Friends be far behind? (God, I hope not.)
Just FYI, to those of us who skim rather than reading carefully, the phrase "jacking of" takes on a whole new meaning. ;-)
lack of really easy installation/dependency resolution/deinstallation of software
Oh, yes, I agree completely. The best possible solution for this would be Apple's approach: most applications don't require any installation at all. You just drag a package (which is actually a directory full of stuff, but acts through the UI like a single object) to wherever you want to keep it. Double-clicking the package launches the program.
Daemons, OS components, and other non-application software is a little more complex, but it doesn't necessarily have to be.
Lack of familiarity
See, this is the difference between easy to use and easy to learn. A computer that's hard to use but familiar to the user becomes easy to use. (Did that make sense?) So a computer that's hard to use but easy to learn can still make it on the desktop. But Linux is neither. It's neither easy to use-- that is, familiar-- nor easy to learn.
Oh, yeah! I forgot about that. Thanks!
Hey, everybody! Fox has cancelled Firefly. Here's what Joss Whedon wrote about it in a post to a message board this morning:I know a lot of people didn't like Firefly, but it still had a loyal, if outnumbered, following. It'll be missed.
So let me get this straight. This article gets posted, but my article about today's announcement that Firefly has been cancelled was rejected five minutes after I submitted it.
Bring on the Off-topic mods. This just makes no sense.
I already answered all of your points the first time I posted. To go on would just be reiteration for the sake of reiteration. I just don't see any reason to get into a "nuh-uh" "uh-huh" argument with you over this. We each have valid opinions, but we don't agree.
All I really will say on the subject is this: Linux is not popular as a desktop operating system, and no big company is working successfully on making it into one. Of the small companies that are trying to do so, just as many have failed (remember Eazel?) as haven't. My opinion is that there must be some reason for these facts, and I told you what I think those reasons are.
Finally, I just don't appreciate a post that I spent a lot of time thinking about-- trying to see the issue from all sides, trying to be objective-- called FUD and a troll. That's just annoying, and I think you're better than that.
This whole post is just a total troll.
This is out of character for you. I expect to hear unpopular opinions labeled "troll" by ACs and other bastards, but not by one such as yourself. Be ashamed.
But Darmok I never quite liked.
That's a shame. But you've gotta admit that the campfire scene where Picard tells the alien captain the story of Gilgamesh is really amazing stuff. And when the alien captain finally... well, you know. Pretty great moment all around. One of the best Picard episodes.
For that matter, why did Data have to get that stupid emotion chip? I never thought his whole quest to become human thing was all that interesting.
While the way it was handled in the end days was dreadful, Data's fascination with and envy of humanity was the most interesting thing about him. Without that aspect of his character, he's literally just a robot.
I think that's why Picard is such a good Captain, for that matter - that slightly inhuman quality he has, the almost limitless self control and focus.
Oh, balls. Some of the very best episodes-- "Darmok," "The Inner Light," "Family," "The Perfect Mate," "Sarek"-- were the ones where Picard let down his guard. In those episodes we saw friendship, love, grief, rage, the whole gamut that flesh is heir to. The fact that he's stoic doesn't mean he's emotionless. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Also, time travel violates causality. It shouldn't be allowed. Period.
Never lose sight of the fact that Star Trek is meant to be entertaining. That's all, that's where it starts and ends. If a time-travel story is entertaining, tell it. Hell, "The City on the Edge of Forever" was arguably the very best episode of the original series, and up there with some of the best science fiction ever. What shouldn't be allowed is stories that fail to entertain, for whatever reason. If time travel is entertaining, go with it. If it's not, don't. That's the rule.
I'm confused. Is there some reason why this job can't best be done with a content balancer? It's been about a year since I looked at them, but last I recall Cisco's Local Directors were very highly regarded. They had intelligent session-level balancing and such, and worked well.
Okay. So long as I understand your meaning. When you say "fuck the customer over," what you mean is "take a profit." Check.
You're right that economics (in the long run) is zero-sum.
Oops. That's not true. Economics is the textbook example of a non-zero-sum game. Consider Van Gogh's "Sunflowers." He took some paint, some wood, and some canvas and made something that is worth millions upon millions of dollars. Another person given the exact same tools and materials might produce a work that's worth a hundred bucks. Another person might produce something that's actually worth less than the value of the materials that went into it.
Or consider another example: food. A meal in a restaurant costs $X. The exact same set of ingredients, prepared poorly, can result in an inedible mess, value $0.
Value is created and destroyed every day. The economy is about as non-zero-sum as it gets.
What exactly is it about the GPL that seems to just scare the shit out of most commercial developers?
The part about how you have to give away your source code for free to anybody who asks for it, even if you so much as link to a GPL-licensed library at compile time. I'm pretty sure that's it.
Besides, who needs the headache of working with the GPL when there are perfectly good BSD-licensed alternatives available? That's why you see commercial (and widely used) operating systems incorporating BSD code, but not GPL code.
it might not be a stretch to say First Contact is the highlight of his career.
You obviously have a much higher opinion of that film than I do. Myself, I would have picked a little film like "L.A. Confidential," maybe. But if you're talking about high points up to then, how can you ignore his turn as Monsieur Perrier's chauffeur in "Murder By Death?" A triumph!
Which is pretty scary because it implies that everything you remember from TNG may not have happened now
Yeah, exactly. That's the cool thing about it. Depending on what happens in "Enterprise," the events of "The Next Generation" and beyond may or may not come to pass. I wish they had played a little more with this idea instead of going all time-travel on us. But that's kind of the mode for Star Trek on television: no consequences. No matter what happens during the first 47 minutes of the 48-minute episode, everything will be back to normal by the time the closing credits roll. "It was all a transporter hallucination," my ass.
What accounts for the purchasing of systems from Dell or Gateway and the challenges of Linux on the desktop is that most end users are cheap and dumb.
Arrogant much?
Even Rama Revealed was worth waiting for, although it got very strange in the end.
You know, I gave up halfway through "Garden;" it wasn't at all what I was looking for. But I've always wondered how the whole "Rama" sequel saga ended. Spoil it for me, will you? Does the third book explain who the Ramans were, where Rama was going, or any of the big questions left unanswered by "Rendezvous?"
The site travelocity.com is running Netscape-Enterprise/4.1 on Solaris 8.
The HTTP server, sure. The actual applications are running on lots and lots of SGIs. If I remember correctly, Travelocity was buying a few new 32-processor SGI systems every quarter for several years.
The Original Star Trek (OST) was written in 1965 and spoon-fed to NBC as a "wagon train to the stars", which means NBC viewed it as a futuristic western
Actually, I'm pretty sure NBC viewed it as a futuristic version of the previous season's most profitable show. It would be like a TV producer pitching a show today as "'Friends' in space," or "a sci-fi 'West Wing.'"
I respectfully disagree. "Rama" was a great book, but it would make a pretty dull movie. It's all talking, and little conflict or peril. I'd love to see it done 2001-style with lots of quiet scenes and awe-inspiring special effects, but I doubt it would be particularly successful, and if it doesn't look to be successful, a studio probably wouldn't do a very good job with it.
Unless, of course, they give it the "Solaris" treatment. I still hold that "Solaris" is one of the best movies of the year, and a "Rama" movie in the same style would be a great thing.
"Rama II," of course, was awful.
STIX - hopefully the cycle is broken? I'm not gonna trust a handfull of reviews. Gonna have to see this one for myself.
Let us know how you like it.
...now Enterprise can't keep its story consistant with the events of the Kirk era that happen 100 years later.
Far be it from me to be an "Enterprise" apologist, but I remember reading somewhere that there's an official explanation for this in the writers' guide or something. The story goes that when the events of "First Contact" happened, the time line forked in a serious way, due to the fact that Zephram Cochrane (or whatever his name was-- you know, Farmer Hoggett) was exposed to 24th century technology. The time line of "Enterprise" isn't the same as the time line of the original Star Trek, "The Next Generation," and so on.
That's actually kind of a neat idea, and a new and different way of pressing the reset button on the whole Star Trek universe. I really wish they'd taken that idea more seriously, tying the series premiere closely to "First Contact," instead of doing the tired and nonsensical "temporal cold war" thing.
Not that "Enterprise" wouldn't still suck, but at least it would make a little more sense in context of all the other Star Trek stories out there.