From the article: Japan lags behind Germany, the United States, China and other nations looking into or using open-source software such as Linux, which can be used and modified for free.
I've heard about how Germany and China have switched/are switching to alternative operating systems, but since when was the United States using open-source software? The last i checked, even the Navy's fricking BATTLESHIPS ran on Windows 2000.
Am i behind the times, or are these guys on crack?
Sigh... either i'm looking harder, or people are getting lamer and lamer recently. While i'm obviously younger than you (which might bias me just a touch), allow me to explain something.
You associate cartoons with childishness. Just because it's animated doesn't make it any less mature than your favourite live-action movie/TV series. There are many serious-minded, dramatic animated features ("Grave of the Fireflies", anyone?), and there are a number of advantages cartoons have over live action:
Virtually-unlimited special effects budget. In animation, you don't have to pay millions upon millions of dollars to show someone jumping out of a huge time portal, or show some horrific monster eat a man whole, or show a squadron of soldiers firing laser cannons. This is as simple to create in animation as anything else.
Character "casting". You don't have to hunt down the perfect actor/actress with the perfect weight, the perfect hair colour, the perfect voice, the perfect skin colour, etc., etc., in animation. You just draw the character the way you want him/her to appear, and there s/he is.
Idealism. The world just doesn't work the way some people want it to. You can't change the laws of physics, every single person you find won't be attractive, etc.. Cartoons work the way you want them to, whether they're realistic, deep, moving depictions of life (like many anime series/movies), or goofy, childish Saturday-morning cartoons (which can be masterpieces, despite their childishness).
What does the fact that you perform the same tasks as any other adult (and some teenagers) have anything to do with cartoons or video games? Seems to me like you've been brainwashed by some of the "intelligent" connoisseur types who associate these things with childishness/immaturity/unintelligence. This same phenomenon can be observed with Pokemon. The Game Boy games (which few who bash it have even played) are actually quite fun, and aren't really any more childish than any other game. What started this whole "Pokemon is for kids, you fanboy losers" thing is the fact that some American corporations saw that Pokemon made money, and they milked it for all that they could. They sold dolls, they sold stuffed animals, they sold cards, they sold McDonald's toys. THAT is why people hate Pokemon. If it had gone on as a regular Game Boy game like any other Game Boy game, nobody would've given it a second thought. Same thing happened to cartoons.
Anyway, video games, Harry Potter, anime, and cartoons are forms of entertainment, no different than your favourite band, your favourite TV show, or your favourite book. If it ENTERTAINS you, it's served its purpose.
Sigh... i thought my one little blurb on Slashdot would be my first and last, but i can't help defending myself.:/
When i say "skins", i mean the so-called "XP styles". To use any of these XP styles besides the Microsoft ones (that is to say, Luna), you have to replace a Windows DLL with a modified one. This site features many of these styles (and yes, most of them are INCREDIBLY lame, but there are a few (very few) good ones). These have NOT been supported since Windows 95, without the use of third-party software such as Windowblinds.
And second, what the fuck does putting them in different categories have ANYTHING to do with objectivity? No shit they can be put in the same category, what's your point? Perhaps you should check this out:
objectivity
n : judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices
Lots of things can be put in the same category if you nitpick hard enough.
Heh, quite aware, in fact. As to the reason why i gave those examples, allow me to clarify:
Winamp: Ok, i know about XMMS. I'm fairly certain anyone who has ever used Linux does. I guess i could say the reason that i prefer Winamp to XMMS (and this may not be a valid reason in some people's minds, but there it is) is the fact that i'm more used to it. Maybe this example was a bad one, cuz that is a pretty lame excuse.
Photoshop: I HATE the GIMP. I've used the GIMP, and tried to like it, but... i don't know, maybe i'm just incredibly stupid, or maybe the GIMP needs some fine lovin' that i just haven't provided, but from my use of it, it does not compare to Photoshop AT ALL. It seems more comparable to Paint Shop Pro, i guess. A nice program all around, but it just isn't as good.
Flash MX: Yeah, i've never heard of an authoring (i guess you'd call it?) program for Flash either.
Nero: Who said i liked/used/preferred Nero's disc images? I'm aware that Nero's native image format is not original, but frankly i don't care. I've never created or burned a Nero disc image, and don't plan on it any time soon. And i know Nero functions the same as every other good CD-burning program out there, but i like Nero for ease of use, and a few features that some lesser programs don't provide. PS: I've never made a coaster with Nero, heh.
Exact Audio Copy: EAC is a VERY nice CD "ripper" that provides excellent quality rips, and offers tons of features. The error correction, C2 read features, compression handling features, etc., etc., are really unmatched by any other Windows, Linux, or Mac ripping software i've ever used (granted, i've only used one or two Linux/Mac rippers).
Hmm, so there's that i guess. I'll probably be regarded as a troll or get flamed or whatever, but eh.
Ok, i didn't even have an account on Slashdot before i saw the above two posts, but i completely disagree with both of them, and had to make my opinion known. Now, i am in NO WAY a fan of Microsoft, and personally i love the Mac OS and Mandrake, but there just needs to be something said here.
"Saying "2000/XP" is like saying "MacOS X/BSD". The two are completely different beasts."
No, they're not. Windows XP is just Windows 2000 + skins + better drivers + new Start menu + a few aesthetic details. In fact, i'm sure you've noticed, Windows 2000 is Windows NT "5.0", and Windows XP is Windows NT "5.1". That is to say, a semi-moderate update, but not a completely new product.
"Windows 2000 is indeed stable, and all-around is the best OS M$ has ever put out. XP, on the other hand, is a nightmare at all levels. The UI changes are ridiculous and counterintuitive, the stability is a joke, and the mothership-calling/DRM/licensing/totalitarianism is insulting, painfully annoying, undesirable, and runs directly counter to the philosophy that made Microsoft, DOS, and Windows a success, which is putting more power and control in the hands of the end user."
The UI changes that actually go any deeper than simple colour and logo changes are very few, and most of these can be modified to work/look exactly like Windows 2000. The stability is a joke? Bull. Windows XP is just as stable as 2000. I've NEVER, repeat, NEVER, had Windows XP (that is to say, the actual operating system) crash on me, and i've been using Windows XP since the pre-2600 build stages. In fact, i might relate a little anecdote here: a few weeks ago, i was attempting to get an old (500 MHz) computer up and running, and as my XP CD was mysteriously corrupted, i installed Windows 2000. Mere MINUTES (and i do not exaggerate) after my initial boot, i got a blue screen, and it died. In Windows XP, the operating system rarely crashes; instead, the programs crash, and the operating system continues on its merry little way. As for "mothership-calling", almost all of those features can be disabled, and if you still think that "M$" is HAX0RING UR IMPROTANT FILEZ then you can invest in a decent firewall. If you know how to work XP, you can make it work or look any way you want it to.
As for the second post:
"In all seriousness, I have found XP to be terrible both in general speed (crispness, responsiveness to clicks, etc.) and stability (especially in an environment where the machine is pushed hard)."
Ok, i don't know what you're running on your computers (i have a Dell Dimension 4300 1.8GHz/512-MB RAM computer, which sounds like the same model, or a similar model, as yours), but XP is nothing but speedy for me. And i'm one of those people who loads his computer with every possible RAM-sucking gadget he can find, including transparent mouse cursors, transparent windows and menus, every single visual effect XP comes with, etc., etc.. XP is super fast for me. My programs don't load up slow at all. On the other hand (and i did notice that you didn't defend any other operating system, but let's use an example here), Mandrake 9 with KDE 3 runs noticeably slower, and this is the standard bare-bones install, with no fancy tricks or gadgets. On both my 500-MHz K6-2 and my 1.8-GHz P4, i have Mandrake and XP Pro dual-booted, and XP is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH faster.
Now, why do i use Windows? Because i'm 15 and don't have the money to buy a Mac; because i was BORN in a house that ran MS-DOS/Windows; because i'm used to it; because it looks prettier; because it's more user-friendly (not so much as opposed to the Mac, but definitely so as opposed to Linux); because all of the great applications that i can't live without (Winamp, Photoshop, Flash MX, Nero, Exact Audio Copy) aren't found on Linux; the list goes on.
I LIKE Linux, i LIKE the Mac; i don't use my computer for playing games (except frozen-bubble:D), i don't use my computer ENTIRELY for chatting with my school friends (like most 15-year-olds i know), i have a little bit of programming/scripting/"getting into the system" experience, and i'd like to think that i know what i'm doing.
So, as an objective observer, i would like to just make my disagreement known.
Slashdot Mirror
Japan lags behind Germany, the United States, China and other nations looking into or using open-source software such as Linux, which can be used and modified for free.
I've heard about how Germany and China have switched/are switching to alternative operating systems, but since when was the United States using open-source software? The last i checked, even the Navy's fricking BATTLESHIPS ran on Windows 2000.
Am i behind the times, or are these guys on crack?
You associate cartoons with childishness. Just because it's animated doesn't make it any less mature than your favourite live-action movie/TV series. There are many serious-minded, dramatic animated features ("Grave of the Fireflies", anyone?), and there are a number of advantages cartoons have over live action:
Virtually-unlimited special effects budget. In animation, you don't have to pay millions upon millions of dollars to show someone jumping out of a huge time portal, or show some horrific monster eat a man whole, or show a squadron of soldiers firing laser cannons. This is as simple to create in animation as anything else.
Character "casting". You don't have to hunt down the perfect actor/actress with the perfect weight, the perfect hair colour, the perfect voice, the perfect skin colour, etc., etc., in animation. You just draw the character the way you want him/her to appear, and there s/he is.
Idealism. The world just doesn't work the way some people want it to. You can't change the laws of physics, every single person you find won't be attractive, etc.. Cartoons work the way you want them to, whether they're realistic, deep, moving depictions of life (like many anime series/movies), or goofy, childish Saturday-morning cartoons (which can be masterpieces, despite their childishness).
What does the fact that you perform the same tasks as any other adult (and some teenagers) have anything to do with cartoons or video games? Seems to me like you've been brainwashed by some of the "intelligent" connoisseur types who associate these things with childishness/immaturity/unintelligence. This same phenomenon can be observed with Pokemon. The Game Boy games (which few who bash it have even played) are actually quite fun, and aren't really any more childish than any other game. What started this whole "Pokemon is for kids, you fanboy losers" thing is the fact that some American corporations saw that Pokemon made money, and they milked it for all that they could. They sold dolls, they sold stuffed animals, they sold cards, they sold McDonald's toys. THAT is why people hate Pokemon. If it had gone on as a regular Game Boy game like any other Game Boy game, nobody would've given it a second thought. Same thing happened to cartoons.
Anyway, video games, Harry Potter, anime, and cartoons are forms of entertainment, no different than your favourite band, your favourite TV show, or your favourite book. If it ENTERTAINS you, it's served its purpose.
When i say "skins", i mean the so-called "XP styles". To use any of these XP styles besides the Microsoft ones (that is to say, Luna), you have to replace a Windows DLL with a modified one. This site features many of these styles (and yes, most of them are INCREDIBLY lame, but there are a few (very few) good ones). These have NOT been supported since Windows 95, without the use of third-party software such as Windowblinds.
And second, what the fuck does putting them in different categories have ANYTHING to do with objectivity? No shit they can be put in the same category, what's your point? Perhaps you should check this out:
objectivity
n : judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices
Lots of things can be put in the same category if you nitpick hard enough.
Winamp: Ok, i know about XMMS. I'm fairly certain anyone who has ever used Linux does. I guess i could say the reason that i prefer Winamp to XMMS (and this may not be a valid reason in some people's minds, but there it is) is the fact that i'm more used to it. Maybe this example was a bad one, cuz that is a pretty lame excuse.
Photoshop: I HATE the GIMP. I've used the GIMP, and tried to like it, but... i don't know, maybe i'm just incredibly stupid, or maybe the GIMP needs some fine lovin' that i just haven't provided, but from my use of it, it does not compare to Photoshop AT ALL. It seems more comparable to Paint Shop Pro, i guess. A nice program all around, but it just isn't as good.
Flash MX: Yeah, i've never heard of an authoring (i guess you'd call it?) program for Flash either.
Nero: Who said i liked/used/preferred Nero's disc images? I'm aware that Nero's native image format is not original, but frankly i don't care. I've never created or burned a Nero disc image, and don't plan on it any time soon. And i know Nero functions the same as every other good CD-burning program out there, but i like Nero for ease of use, and a few features that some lesser programs don't provide. PS: I've never made a coaster with Nero, heh.
Exact Audio Copy: EAC is a VERY nice CD "ripper" that provides excellent quality rips, and offers tons of features. The error correction, C2 read features, compression handling features, etc., etc., are really unmatched by any other Windows, Linux, or Mac ripping software i've ever used (granted, i've only used one or two Linux/Mac rippers).
Hmm, so there's that i guess. I'll probably be regarded as a troll or get flamed or whatever, but eh.
Hehehe, too bad i can't get hardware off of KaZaA. They should add that feature some time.
"Saying "2000/XP" is like saying "MacOS X/BSD". The two are completely different beasts."
No, they're not. Windows XP is just Windows 2000 + skins + better drivers + new Start menu + a few aesthetic details. In fact, i'm sure you've noticed, Windows 2000 is Windows NT "5.0", and Windows XP is Windows NT "5.1". That is to say, a semi-moderate update, but not a completely new product.
"Windows 2000 is indeed stable, and all-around is the best OS M$ has ever put out. XP, on the other hand, is a nightmare at all levels. The UI changes are ridiculous and counterintuitive, the stability is a joke, and the mothership-calling/DRM/licensing/totalitarianism is insulting, painfully annoying, undesirable, and runs directly counter to the philosophy that made Microsoft, DOS, and Windows a success, which is putting more power and control in the hands of the end user."
The UI changes that actually go any deeper than simple colour and logo changes are very few, and most of these can be modified to work/look exactly like Windows 2000. The stability is a joke? Bull. Windows XP is just as stable as 2000. I've NEVER, repeat, NEVER, had Windows XP (that is to say, the actual operating system) crash on me, and i've been using Windows XP since the pre-2600 build stages. In fact, i might relate a little anecdote here: a few weeks ago, i was attempting to get an old (500 MHz) computer up and running, and as my XP CD was mysteriously corrupted, i installed Windows 2000. Mere MINUTES (and i do not exaggerate) after my initial boot, i got a blue screen, and it died. In Windows XP, the operating system rarely crashes; instead, the programs crash, and the operating system continues on its merry little way. As for "mothership-calling", almost all of those features can be disabled, and if you still think that "M$" is HAX0RING UR IMPROTANT FILEZ then you can invest in a decent firewall. If you know how to work XP, you can make it work or look any way you want it to.
As for the second post:
"In all seriousness, I have found XP to be terrible both in general speed (crispness, responsiveness to clicks, etc.) and stability (especially in an environment where the machine is pushed hard)."
Ok, i don't know what you're running on your computers (i have a Dell Dimension 4300 1.8GHz/512-MB RAM computer, which sounds like the same model, or a similar model, as yours), but XP is nothing but speedy for me. And i'm one of those people who loads his computer with every possible RAM-sucking gadget he can find, including transparent mouse cursors, transparent windows and menus, every single visual effect XP comes with, etc., etc.. XP is super fast for me. My programs don't load up slow at all. On the other hand (and i did notice that you didn't defend any other operating system, but let's use an example here), Mandrake 9 with KDE 3 runs noticeably slower, and this is the standard bare-bones install, with no fancy tricks or gadgets. On both my 500-MHz K6-2 and my 1.8-GHz P4, i have Mandrake and XP Pro dual-booted, and XP is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH faster.
Now, why do i use Windows? Because i'm 15 and don't have the money to buy a Mac; because i was BORN in a house that ran MS-DOS/Windows; because i'm used to it; because it looks prettier; because it's more user-friendly (not so much as opposed to the Mac, but definitely so as opposed to Linux); because all of the great applications that i can't live without (Winamp, Photoshop, Flash MX, Nero, Exact Audio Copy) aren't found on Linux; the list goes on.
I LIKE Linux, i LIKE the Mac; i don't use my computer for playing games (except frozen-bubble :D), i don't use my computer ENTIRELY for chatting with my school friends (like most 15-year-olds i know), i have a little bit of programming/scripting/"getting into the system" experience, and i'd like to think that i know what i'm doing.
So, as an objective observer, i would like to just make my disagreement known.