I don't plan to remove you from my Friends list. But I do have a question. Have I made it onto your foes list because I occasionally troll for fun, or do you outright consider all of my posts trolls? I like to get pretty outrageous sometimes, but I also post pretty sane material when the mood strikes me. And of course there are the personal vendettas...
Probably NO ONE cares if you remove the catalytic converter from a car... but I'll tell you who will care. You're kids and grandkids or great-grandkids when they have to wear a gasmask to go outside and play because of all the pollution. While the catalytic converters add some small cost to the price of your car, require extra maintenance and may cause some performance hit to your gas mileage, don't you think that's a fair trade off for preserving the environment for EVERYONE else on the planet? Your perspective assumes that it doesn't matter because it may not affect YOU personally. But does that mean it doesn't matter to others? It is these selfish and shortsighted attitudes that ruin a lot of things for everyone else.
The question you are avoiding here is... SHOULD people remove their catalytic converters? The same question applies to established standards like the HTTP protocol (Or POP3, SMTP, IMAP, etc...). SHOULD one company break the rules to improve the performance of their product to the detriment of all other platforms that use the same standard? If someone did this first on the Unix/Linux platform, I guarantee that there would still be people who would be pissed at the fact that someone is breaking convention with the standards. I would be among them. These standards exist to guarantee equivalent performance and compatibility with others adhering to the standards. If MS wants to shift away from that for their own gain, they should make that public knowledge so that people will be informed when they elect to use Microsoft products. Or they should make their own proprietary MSHTTP protocol so they can break the standards and let those of us who choose to adhere to the standards know that they aren't interested in interoperability. (Which we all know anyway) Since they haven't let anyone know about this, they are obviously only breaking with this standard selfishly for their own gain. It makes their products perform faster, but it also leaves room for a lot of problems later as they diverge further from the standards. All the while they are dragging their consumer base in a co-dependent manner that only serves Microsoft. This advantage for Microsoft is not worth it in the long run.
No sour grapes here. It would be like being envious because your neighbor put a motorcycle engine on his bicycle to beat you in a race. Fact is he still cheated.
It's kind of like removing the catalytic converter from the exhaust system of your car. It might help YOU, but it screws everyone else in the long run.
What I've noticed when I buy dead tree books is that I get much more value out of the books that can be used as reference tools. Typically these are books that touch on subjects that aren't quickly moving targets. For example, I recently bought an O'Reilly book on Bash at a used book store. The book isn't 100% up to date (1999 I believe), but it has helped me move a long way in my Bash scripting and is still very relevant. It's a great reference book. However, I also bought a book that explained what W.I.N.E. is and provided some usage examples at about the same time. Unfortunately, that book is incredibly out of date now and since it was also published in 1999. At this point, it's just s brick. (The W.I.N.E. project changed the way the config files work, so this book is really useless as a reference book)
With that said, I'd like to point out that if these books are expected to sell as dead tree items, they should probably be more "reference" books than introductory books and probably deal with subject matter that changes slowly over time. The addition of the electronic version makes it relatively easy to keep THAT version up to date, but it doesn't help the owners of the dead tree version when they are not able to access the Internet.
As an aside, I'd also like to point out the electronic books might benefit from being on CD-RW as opposed to CD-R. Considering that CD-RWs are pretty ubiquitous these days, a dead tree book could come with the book in electronic format on a CD-RW. That way, a user could keep their electronic version up to date by running an "updater" program that would check for the latest version, open the disc for writing, add changes to the disc, and then close the session to make it readable again. THAT would add enough value to the dead tree version that I think people would be kept interested in all three approaches: Paper Book, Online Version, and CD-RW distributed with book. The only reason people don't typically care about included CDs is that they become irrelevant VERY quickly. Just a thought.
Troll alert! Troll alert! You have been trolled by rusty spoon. He is apparently unable to comprehend the idea that rules and laws are made for a reason: they prevent problems. rusty spoon needs to pull his head out of the sand and start thinking like a logical adult. Unless, of course, he ISN'T a logical adult...
Whatever happened to logged in trolls? You are obviously trolling, but you haven't done it as a logged in user. How sad. I post all my trolls with this account when I feel like trolling. You should try it. It's good for the spirit.
I'll clarify since I WAS a punk rocker in the 80s. (Which probably explains my tendency to want to screw with people here on/.) The Sex Pistols from England are usually credited as starting the whole punk thing (circa 1977). However, the Velvet Underground are recognized by some as being the original punk band. They weren't actually punk, they were a rock band with artsy pretenses and connections to the Warhol art scene. If anyone can be credited for starting punk rock, it would be The Ramones (circa 1974) or possibly The Stooges (circa 1967-68). I, personally, don't think The Stooges fit the bill though, so I'll give the Ramones some credit and The Sex Pistols the rest. I still feel that it was the Brits who took punk and really made it into something great. They were Apple to America's pre-Windows Microsoft/IBM complex.
Yes... these do look cool. Especially if they displace automobiles for short run traffic like grocery shopping, going to school or work, etc... We really need to wean ourselves off of petroleum. We could just tell the middle east to kiss our asses once we don't need oil. However, that isn't the real subject of my post. I was just wondering if anyone here has wondered, as I have:
Stats can be made to support anything. It all depends on what it is you want them to support. Witness the issue of Germans wearing helmets instead of decorative fabric hats during WWI. The people who were opposed to wearing helmets in WWI said that people who wore the helmets were far more likely to recieve injuries. They used this to argue that helmets were bad. However, upon later analysis, it was found that the increase in the number of injuries was directly related to the DECREASE in FATALITIES. The helmets were saving lives. Therefore, the people who argue that Windows has a lower TCO are likely leaving out certain factors to make Windows look better. Of course, the Linux folks don't have to do this since there is no monetary gain to be concerned about. AND... that Linux really is a lot cheaper overall than Windows. Put that in your pipe and smoke it NineNine.
Caution folks... I think if we start to see a lot of positive press about Linux, it could be a M$ ploy. Imagine the reaction of people who think; "Hey, I've been hearing a lot about this Linux lately. Maybe I should try it.". Then they try it and have some problems because the articles MISLED then to believe it's "Better than Windows". To them "Better than Windows" means "Easier than Windows 98 OEM pre-installed at the factory with all drivers loaded and all applications pre-installed". They then try the install and get pissed off when they can't get it to work with every piece of shit peripheral they bought. They leave the experience feeling that "Windows IS better than Linux". I think it's important that any article that touts Linux as being better in any way than Windows be carefully read, responded to and interpretted for Joe User.
This is quite true. The thing that got me to switch over from Windows to Linux was "cool factor". The two coolest programs I had ever seen were G.I.M.P. and Enlightenment. It was just those two apps that made me want to move from Windows to Linux completely in 1997. Since then, I've only used Windows at work because I have to.
...the early post-punk, industrial, indie, ambient, goth folks (like me) used to follow labels:
You want good industrial? - WaxTrax Records
You want decent indie? - Homestead Records
Ethereal/goth? - 4AD
A lot of those labels got bought by the major labels and kind of screwed over. But... there do appear to be new indies popping up introducing lots of cool new stuff. If you are into electronic stuff (anything from retro to glitch) the following labels seem pretty good:
Emperor Norton
I discovered the following (mostly retro) acts on Emperor Norton:
Broadcast (This one isn't glitch it's more of the new psychedelic wave hitting the UK)
So, I suggest that you find a few things you like and then start shopping the labels. If they aren't majors, chances are you'll find some good surprises. Good luck, and happy searching...
This is a good point. I am a huge fan of Linux since it's saved me a lot of money at home and allowed me to spend money where it counts: hardware. But I have to say that the number of people who actually know about Linux or are using it seems to be very small in my area (Cleveland Ohio).
It's actually surprised me how little interest there seems to be among the more knowlegable of my IT peers. The lack of interest ranges from "It's not as secure/robust/logical as OpenVMS, Windows NT, real Unix, etc..." to "Yeah, it's cool and all... but I just don't have the time to learn everything you need to know".
As far as my non-IT computer literate friends, their interest ranges from "Linux? What's that? Does it run under Windows XP?" to "I've heard about it, but if it doesn't run KillerApp 8.0, it doesn't do me much good".
To be honest I don't really have any friends that are interested in Linux since I don't really know anyone who is as "into computers" as I am. I think it really comes down to the kind of person you are. I admit, my friends and family have experience with using Linux, but only through me. If they didn't know me, they wouldn't know anything about Linux.
The thing that I fear the most is that a lot of the publicity to "Joe User" could actually backfire. Imagine if Linux is touted in newspapers and magazines as the "Next Great Thing" and people go out and get machines with Linux that are poorly configured, insecure and on poor/cheap hardware. Then these people get pissed off and start spreading horror stories about their experience with Linux. It could happen no matter how well the systems are configured since Joe User tends to gravitate towards the "latest and greatest" hardware which isn't always well supported in Linux. When he plugs in his digital camera and nothing happens, it's going to make a bad impression.
Keep in mind that I am not saying that Linux is bad for the desktop, but I am saying that it's probably about the same as non-OEM Windows 2000 Pro installation for a generic user. It requires more knowledge than the average user has. At the moment, that could make Linux look bad to the average user. Something like Lindows on a Wal-Mart PC along with some caveats about what might NOT work would be OK. But, Joe Average might be more likely to go to Circuit City and buy a RedHat 8 CD-ROM and then get pissed off when they don't get it to work.
RedHat 8 has a great look, very well laid out menu system, task oriented/integrated interface and is very nice in general, but it has a lot of problems for some systems too: Lockups with certain IDE chipsets, memory leaks in the gnome-panel and gnome-terminal, problems with the Package Manager, etc... In fact CD-ROM 2 has failed for almost everyone I know when trying to install certain programs. Any average user who gives this a first try as an install is going to be very angry and this would be bad for Linux on the desktop in general.
What to do? Sorry... but I don't have an answer. It still seems to me that one of the problems in making a "Linux for the desktop" distro is that a lot of us (Linux users/developers) are so far removed from the average user that we can't see all of the things that could be stumbling blocks. It's hard to sit back and remember the days when you didn't know what formatting a disk was. But that might be what's required. Maybe a sit down with your friends and family to find out what they might not like about computers in general (to know what to alleviate in Linux) might help too.
I feel for you as far as losing your job and all... but trust me the rich white repubs that run the company you used to work for and eliminated your job have no regrets about what they did. You know that. And who's side are they on? Or more to the point, who's side is Rush on? I have a feeling he'd be partying with them at the thought of axing a few more employees to fatten their paychecks. After all, that's what capitalism is all about. Making money. If you tell me that the guys who put you out of work are non-white, "limp-dicked" ineffectual liberals, I think you are further out to lunch than you claim me to be.
Mod away buddy... There's plenty more karma to be had as I post more rational posts for the next few days.
Please explain? Diversification? How? One OS. One set of applications. One ISP. How is this diverse for the people? It's diverse for Microsoft in terms of business, but the bottom line is... how does it help "Joe Average"? If Joe Average wants to be able to do something with his computer that Microsoft OS/Apps/ISP won't allow him to, but it's a legitimate need, how is Joe Average helped by a monopoly? Unless he has stock in the company, it doesn't. But.. if he has stock in the company, chances are he isn't really Joe Average then, is he?
What is this obsession that some people have with supporting business to an extreme degree? I admit, that I have ranted about evil big business before, but I am not 100% opposed to the idea of seeling products, working for decent pay, etc... The problem is that Microsoft already has a lot of money and their fingers in a lot of pies. To those who measure their success by wealth, Microsoft is indeed very successful. So, WHY should they need to keep trying to get more... and more... and MORE? What is the end goal OTHER than a monopoly?
OK... let's say that the uper-capitalists here on Slashdot win "the game" and Microsoft becomes the ONLY company that you can buy and operating system, applications and internet service from. What then? What has it gained anyone other than Bill Gates and the stockholders? Absolutely nothing!
Ahhh... But, what has been lost? How about, alternatives? Choice? Real competition? This is why the capitalist game is such a farce and it is also why OSS and Free software exist; To provide a balance to the one-sided notion that Microsoft or some other corporation should own everything.
Personally, money is a lot like toilets. Good to have when you need it. Otherwise it's a nuisance and really is not a true indicator of personal success. To really be successful at life, you have to be able to see WAYYY beyond your wallet. I think it's a development issue. Kind of how some people get stuck in the oral and anal stages of development. It think some people get stuck with some kind of insecurity that puts a little voice in their head that says, "More! MORE!!! MUAST HAVE MORE IF I AM GOING TO BE A WINNER!!!!!". If this is you, please get help. Your insecurities are holding back your personal development.
This Eric Raymond guy isn't very smart! By being very open about what he thinks about Microsoft's strategy, he's giving Microsoft the insight to actually defeat OSS! I call for opposition of full disclosure! Oh wait... this isn't an OS security discussion is it? Sorry folks. Wrong troll.;P
Actually, this is a very entertaining read like all the other analysis of the Halloween docs.
No he isn't really physically fat. More like, mentally thick. Either way, he's still a total corporate loving bastard. A complete jerk and a liar. To him "I believe" = "It is so". Stupid idiot was always going on about Clinton not serving. Well what about Rush??? He didn't serve either! Any you WANNA KNOW WHY!??? Because he got a 4F rating. What for you ask? A boil on his rotund ass. "Owww.. daddy, I have a pimple on my butt. I can't serve in the armed forces! Wahh wahhh!!!" Stupid asshat.
This actually sounds like a really good idea. There have been rumors flying around that MS is planning on making a DB based filesystem akin to the way that Exchange mail stores work. This approach sounds better to me since it gives you the benefit of both approaches: a DB for fast file location and a true HFS that still allows legacy applications to utilize it. Knowing MS's usual approach they are probably going to negate their existing applications base with the filesystem. Users and admins will likely be in a similar predicament that the mixed-mode domains are currently in; patially NTFS and partially "Storage FS", "NTFS2" or whatever they wind up calling it.
I posted the following on Slashdot a while back and think it fits in nicely here, so I'll repost;
I've been thinking about this at great length for the past year or so. The W.I.M.P. interface is going to be with us for a while no matter what we think of it. It will evolve and get enhanced by other developments in input devices (eye tracking, speech recognition, humanoid virtual androids, etc..), but will probably largely remain the same. The real "innovations" (for lack of a less used word) are to be had in new approaches to using the computer to actually get work done.
Unfortunately, I think Microsoft has us in a bad spot right now. I've heard rumours for a while that one of their big projects is some kind of storage/document management system. When you think about it, this makes sense for the business world as the "next big thing" because the suits don't care about data formats and don't WANT to learn about what type of data is compatible with other data. If my hunch is correct (based on the info I've seen in various spots on the net) they are planning to make a transparent, centralized (within an enterprise) mass data storage system that completely abstracts data from file formats. More then likely, the end result will be based on that DB centered filesystem we've been hearing about. So when a user creates data, whether it's graphic, text, audio, etc... it all goes into this DB with approapriate links drawn automatically between the different data. The user never has to think about file formats. They just create their data (which they will likely think of as "documents" with no type) and save it to their published "Folder". The filesystem/OS will take care of all the data type matching. Exchange and Windows XP for Pen Computing are the first glimpses at this kind of thing.
If we really want to get something new happening, we really have to start thinking about a few items: 1. Computers (even with W.I.M.P.) force people to interact in non-human ways. 2. To be truly efficient, every task that a computer could be used for requires different UI approaches to be "optmized" for that use. (Witness the turnkey systems out there for the button pushing monkeys to use) 3. You either have maximum flexibility and number of features at the cost of true ease of use, or you limit your user to make things easier to use. There is no compromise.
To tackle the first point: People have been working for so long on trying to make computers "user friendly" that they've added so many things that actually cripple the user. As Neal Stephenson pointed out in his essay, "In the Beginning There Was Command Line", many metaphors actually prevent the new device from being used to it's full potential. He had an example of a steam powered car that used reigns for steering because it was something people were familiar with. However, it's obvious to us now that the steering wheel (while a new concept) was actually the better interface. I think we need to question whether we really need to hold onto a lot of the metaphors in use today. Should we try and meet our machines halfway, especially since their eventual role will probably be to augment us in many ways? Or maybe we should come up with new, less limiting metaphors? I think it will all come down to how each individual uses their computer.
I know that I feel very limited by GUIs these days. It doesn't matter if it's Windows, Linux or MacOS. I've used them all and can easily move between all of them since they really aren't different at all anymore. However, I do get a lot more usability and flexibility from the CLI for the way I use my machines. Still... the CLI is limiting too. The time to integrate CLI and GUI into something more cohesive than just running an xterm in X, or CMD in Explorer has come. Why don't we have a CLI that has modern text editing facilities. There are many times when I wish I could do a text search through the text in my scrollback buffer. Or how about being able to "drag and drop" filenames to directories in a CLI window, instead of having both a GUI file manager and a CLI open? Or dragging a console command line out of a script you're editing to the desktop and having a new CLI window (or maybe a new tab if you have an MDI capable CLI) pop up with the line ready to execute by pressing enter. Or maybe a way to use the command history to create new scripts easily? Just arrow up to the commands you just used and tag them in the order you want them and have them output to a new script in your home dir. These are basically shortcuts that could make CLI life a lot easier. However, this still barely touches the real issue.
The real problem is that the computers (with ANY UI) still force users into limited ways of interacting and thinking. To manage your files, you have to think in hierarchical fashion even if that ISN'T the way that you work with real paper/books/printouts, etc... File management should be approached in a much different way than it is currently. (Most users I know never even touch their file managers unless they are going to read a floppy.) The "search" tools that many GUIs provide this to some extent, but it's only ephemeral. A search is not a permanent record of a state. The only "views" that we currently have in a GUI are limited to the way that a computer "tech" thinks, not a user. In fact, the very use of the word "file" may be an impediment to using a computer in the most efficient way.
If we take a more object based view. The data would make a slight transformation from "graphic image file" to simply; "Picture" regardless of the format. Text data would no longer be the mish-mash of formats that it currently is (ASCII text, "DOC", RTF, PDF). It would instead become "Letters", "Articles", "Recipes", "Source Code" "Personal Photos", "Promotional Pictures", etc...
Instead of the user arranging folders that contain all of these categories, the OS would already have a pre-ordered layout of filing by these categories. However, this would not be the normal folder structure that a filesystem uses, but it would be a database that manages the underlying filesystem. As new applications get installed, more categories for those apps get added if they don't already exist. When the user opens their personal information store, they would be presented with a list of the categories (with a bias towards the most often used types) to scan through. Once they select the ONE category they are interested in, all other categories dissapear from the list and a new interface is presented with the option to search for a specific document or select a "view". The "view" could be chronological, alphabetical, or relational. If they pick chronological, their choices can be Today, Yesterday, Within the Past Week/Month/Year, Specific Date. If they pick alphabetical, they get the options for Forward/Reverse order, or Specific Letter - Forward Reverse (Ablilities, Accidental, Actionable...). It they pick relational, they can select a specific document and it will present them with a "web" of all related documents on their system, network, or corporate enterprise. This is just a simple illustration of "what could be" for the typical end user. Let's take a look now at what could be for the advanced user.
A lot of times, I find myself with a strong desire to have access to my machines, but being limited by the other things I need to do in daily life. The concept of the wearable computer appeals more and more.:) But, the only input devices we have are still limiting. The closest thing I've seen to something useful for text input is "Dasher". Combine this with eye tracking and I think you have a great solution for portable computing with no need for KB, twiddler, or the like. The other thing I think we should be looking at is the possibility of CLIs actually learning what we do most and creating aliases based on those actions with notification that we have a new alias that we can use for those actions. The other possibility is textual access to that same DB that the normal users would have in the GUI. This DB would allow us to use our machines in CLI mode with automatic suggestions for related commands, data, services appearing in a "scratch" location on the CLI for the machine's "stream of consiousness". It would become symbiotic. As we learn about our machines, and our machines learn about us, we augment each other. And THAT is what we should be working towards: computers that augment us as individuals while being as transparent or intrusive as the user desires.
My second point is that depending on how you use your machine, certain UI/input device combos may be more efficient than a "one size fits all" approach. For instance a musician may want to use a computer with a KB, Mouse and a real mixing board input device for virtual studio work. Or an artist might want to use a tablet interface that allows them to draw on screen just as on paper. One of the things that Linux has going for it in this way is that you really could make dedicated distros for different types of work. This would be a great way to usurp Windows from certain arenas since MS would likely never take this appraoch as it would cost too much. But it needen't cost as much for Linux. The freedom it would allow for in UI design would be incredible. Imagine the new kinds of tools and approaches that could be created without being fettered by a "desktop" metaphor. This is where I think some extra specialized work needs to be done: hardware input devices. If we can get Linux to support as many input devices as possible, and combine that with very specific task focused distros (or a distro with "task plug-ins"), we could gain more acceptance in specialized fields.
The third factor is how much power to actually give the user. As we've all seen with the various W.I.M.P. interfaces out there, having more than one way to do something is great, but it gets in the way of user friendliness. I've seen plenty of people get EXTREMELY confused by seeing that they could minimize a window by clicking on the _ widget OR by left clicking on the application's window menu on the left side and selecting "Minimize", or by right clicking on the application's listing in the task menu and right clicking to select "Minimize", or... you get the picture. While it's nice to have all those options (especially as the user becomes more adept, it's likely to confuse the user). I still wonder why no one has taken notice of Nautilus' old (weak, but clueful) approach of having different modes: Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced. Someone need's to sit down and figure out what the easiest GUI thing for most users to do is and pick that ONE approach for a function. Then all of those simple approaches would become the "Beginner" settings. The "Intermediate" settings could incorporate other GUI based approaches that are less commonly used but might be preferred by a more intermeidate user. And the KB shortcuts (there should be one for every function in the GUI) are left to the "Advanced" user mode.
Instead of completely removing features to try and avoid confusing the user, the features should be categorized thoughout all apps and the OS environment into categories of some kind to limit what a beginning user is exposed to. Some people will never break past that, and that is fine. Others will want to explore and learn more. Either way... the real goal needs to be more humanization of the UIs, and more machination of the humans."
I suggest that the view that should be taken of this project is that the average user (especially in businesses) shouldn't need to know what filetype their data is or where it is kept on the storage system. They should be able to search through their data by the attributes that this project has created. The system should really do the "file management" for them behind the scenes. This is not something that the uber-user needs, but "Joe User" would probably find an OS that does these things a LOT more attractive than others...
Hey... you know what? Fuck you! I don't care who mods me down or how many times fucker. I have another account with more karma than you'll ever see. And I say the same things with it, so you can't keep me down. Go fuck your mom, I got her ready for you last night.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't plan to remove you from my Friends list. But I do have a question. Have I made it onto your foes list because I occasionally troll for fun, or do you outright consider all of my posts trolls? I like to get pretty outrageous sometimes, but I also post pretty sane material when the mood strikes me. And of course there are the personal vendettas...
Probably NO ONE cares if you remove the catalytic converter from a car... but I'll tell you who will care. You're kids and grandkids or great-grandkids when they have to wear a gasmask to go outside and play because of all the pollution. While the catalytic converters add some small cost to the price of your car, require extra maintenance and may cause some performance hit to your gas mileage, don't you think that's a fair trade off for preserving the environment for EVERYONE else on the planet? Your perspective assumes that it doesn't matter because it may not affect YOU personally. But does that mean it doesn't matter to others? It is these selfish and shortsighted attitudes that ruin a lot of things for everyone else.
The question you are avoiding here is... SHOULD people remove their catalytic converters? The same question applies to established standards like the HTTP protocol (Or POP3, SMTP, IMAP, etc...). SHOULD one company break the rules to improve the performance of their product to the detriment of all other platforms that use the same standard? If someone did this first on the Unix/Linux platform, I guarantee that there would still be people who would be pissed at the fact that someone is breaking convention with the standards. I would be among them. These standards exist to guarantee equivalent performance and compatibility with others adhering to the standards. If MS wants to shift away from that for their own gain, they should make that public knowledge so that people will be informed when they elect to use Microsoft products. Or they should make their own proprietary MSHTTP protocol so they can break the standards and let those of us who choose to adhere to the standards know that they aren't interested in interoperability. (Which we all know anyway) Since they haven't let anyone know about this, they are obviously only breaking with this standard selfishly for their own gain. It makes their products perform faster, but it also leaves room for a lot of problems later as they diverge further from the standards. All the while they are dragging their consumer base in a co-dependent manner that only serves Microsoft. This advantage for Microsoft is not worth it in the long run.
No sour grapes here. It would be like being envious because your neighbor put a motorcycle engine on his bicycle to beat you in a race. Fact is he still cheated.
It's kind of like removing the catalytic converter from the exhaust system of your car. It might help YOU, but it screws everyone else in the long run.
What I've noticed when I buy dead tree books is that I get much more value out of the books that can be used as reference tools. Typically these are books that touch on subjects that aren't quickly moving targets. For example, I recently bought an O'Reilly book on Bash at a used book store. The book isn't 100% up to date (1999 I believe), but it has helped me move a long way in my Bash scripting and is still very relevant. It's a great reference book. However, I also bought a book that explained what W.I.N.E. is and provided some usage examples at about the same time. Unfortunately, that book is incredibly out of date now and since it was also published in 1999. At this point, it's just s brick. (The W.I.N.E. project changed the way the config files work, so this book is really useless as a reference book)
With that said, I'd like to point out that if these books are expected to sell as dead tree items, they should probably be more "reference" books than introductory books and probably deal with subject matter that changes slowly over time. The addition of the electronic version makes it relatively easy to keep THAT version up to date, but it doesn't help the owners of the dead tree version when they are not able to access the Internet.
As an aside, I'd also like to point out the electronic books might benefit from being on CD-RW as opposed to CD-R. Considering that CD-RWs are pretty ubiquitous these days, a dead tree book could come with the book in electronic format on a CD-RW. That way, a user could keep their electronic version up to date by running an "updater" program that would check for the latest version, open the disc for writing, add changes to the disc, and then close the session to make it readable again. THAT would add enough value to the dead tree version that I think people would be kept interested in all three approaches: Paper Book, Online Version, and CD-RW distributed with book. The only reason people don't typically care about included CDs is that they become irrelevant VERY quickly. Just a thought.
Would that be Emo Philips you are speaking of? I saw him live about a year ago. Not as funny as he was in the 80s, but still OK.
NineNine willl never understand. He's a fucking retard.
Troll alert! Troll alert! You have been trolled by rusty spoon. He is apparently unable to comprehend the idea that rules and laws are made for a reason: they prevent problems. rusty spoon needs to pull his head out of the sand and start thinking like a logical adult. Unless, of course, he ISN'T a logical adult...
Whatever happened to logged in trolls? You are obviously trolling, but you haven't done it as a logged in user. How sad. I post all my trolls with this account when I feel like trolling. You should try it. It's good for the spirit.
Dude... the technology STILL consists of rocks. Where do you think the silicon in Microchips somes from?
Hey buddy... how's it hangin' my friend?
I'll clarify since I WAS a punk rocker in the 80s. (Which probably explains my tendency to want to screw with people here on /.) The Sex Pistols from England are usually credited as starting the whole punk thing (circa 1977). However, the Velvet Underground are recognized by some as being the original punk band. They weren't actually punk, they were a rock band with artsy pretenses and connections to the Warhol art scene. If anyone can be credited for starting punk rock, it would be The Ramones (circa 1974) or possibly The Stooges (circa 1967-68). I, personally, don't think The Stooges fit the bill though, so I'll give the Ramones some credit and The Sex Pistols the rest. I still feel that it was the Brits who took punk and really made it into something great. They were Apple to America's pre-Windows Microsoft/IBM complex.
Yes... these do look cool. Especially if they displace automobiles for short run traffic like grocery shopping, going to school or work, etc... We really need to wean ourselves off of petroleum. We could just tell the middle east to kiss our asses once we don't need oil. However, that isn't the real subject of my post. I was just wondering if anyone here has wondered, as I have:
Oat Willie and Segway Riders. Separated at birth?
Stats can be made to support anything. It all depends on what it is you want them to support. Witness the issue of Germans wearing helmets instead of decorative fabric hats during WWI. The people who were opposed to wearing helmets in WWI said that people who wore the helmets were far more likely to recieve injuries. They used this to argue that helmets were bad. However, upon later analysis, it was found that the increase in the number of injuries was directly related to the DECREASE in FATALITIES. The helmets were saving lives. Therefore, the people who argue that Windows has a lower TCO are likely leaving out certain factors to make Windows look better. Of course, the Linux folks don't have to do this since there is no monetary gain to be concerned about. AND... that Linux really is a lot cheaper overall than Windows. Put that in your pipe and smoke it NineNine.
Caution folks... I think if we start to see a lot of positive press about Linux, it could be a M$ ploy. Imagine the reaction of people who think; "Hey, I've been hearing a lot about this Linux lately. Maybe I should try it.". Then they try it and have some problems because the articles MISLED then to believe it's "Better than Windows". To them "Better than Windows" means "Easier than Windows 98 OEM pre-installed at the factory with all drivers loaded and all applications pre-installed". They then try the install and get pissed off when they can't get it to work with every piece of shit peripheral they bought. They leave the experience feeling that "Windows IS better than Linux". I think it's important that any article that touts Linux as being better in any way than Windows be carefully read, responded to and interpretted for Joe User.
This is quite true. The thing that got me to switch over from Windows to Linux was "cool factor". The two coolest programs I had ever seen were G.I.M.P. and Enlightenment. It was just those two apps that made me want to move from Windows to Linux completely in 1997. Since then, I've only used Windows at work because I have to.
You want good industrial? - WaxTrax Records
You want decent indie? - Homestead Records
Ethereal/goth? - 4AD
A lot of those labels got bought by the major labels and kind of screwed over. But... there do appear to be new indies popping up introducing lots of cool new stuff. If you are into electronic stuff (anything from retro to glitch) the following labels seem pretty good:
Emperor Norton
I discovered the following (mostly retro) acts on Emperor Norton:
Miss Kittin and the Hacker
Felix Da Housecat
Ladytron
For glitch, I've been following Warp Records
Some of the great glitch stuff they have:
Plaid
The Boards of Canada
Autechre
Broadcast (This one isn't glitch it's more of the new psychedelic wave hitting the UK)
So, I suggest that you find a few things you like and then start shopping the labels. If they aren't majors, chances are you'll find some good surprises. Good luck, and happy searching...
This is a good point. I am a huge fan of Linux since it's saved me a lot of money at home and allowed me to spend money where it counts: hardware. But I have to say that the number of people who actually know about Linux or are using it seems to be very small in my area (Cleveland Ohio).
It's actually surprised me how little interest there seems to be among the more knowlegable of my IT peers. The lack of interest ranges from "It's not as secure/robust/logical as OpenVMS, Windows NT, real Unix, etc..." to "Yeah, it's cool and all... but I just don't have the time to learn everything you need to know".
As far as my non-IT computer literate friends, their interest ranges from "Linux? What's that? Does it run under Windows XP?" to "I've heard about it, but if it doesn't run KillerApp 8.0, it doesn't do me much good".
To be honest I don't really have any friends that are interested in Linux since I don't really know anyone who is as "into computers" as I am. I think it really comes down to the kind of person you are. I admit, my friends and family have experience with using Linux, but only through me. If they didn't know me, they wouldn't know anything about Linux.
The thing that I fear the most is that a lot of the publicity to "Joe User" could actually backfire. Imagine if Linux is touted in newspapers and magazines as the "Next Great Thing" and people go out and get machines with Linux that are poorly configured, insecure and on poor/cheap hardware. Then these people get pissed off and start spreading horror stories about their experience with Linux. It could happen no matter how well the systems are configured since Joe User tends to gravitate towards the "latest and greatest" hardware which isn't always well supported in Linux. When he plugs in his digital camera and nothing happens, it's going to make a bad impression.
Keep in mind that I am not saying that Linux is bad for the desktop, but I am saying that it's probably about the same as non-OEM Windows 2000 Pro installation for a generic user. It requires more knowledge than the average user has. At the moment, that could make Linux look bad to the average user. Something like Lindows on a Wal-Mart PC along with some caveats about what might NOT work would be OK. But, Joe Average might be more likely to go to Circuit City and buy a RedHat 8 CD-ROM and then get pissed off when they don't get it to work.
RedHat 8 has a great look, very well laid out menu system, task oriented/integrated interface and is very nice in general, but it has a lot of problems for some systems too: Lockups with certain IDE chipsets, memory leaks in the gnome-panel and gnome-terminal, problems with the Package Manager, etc... In fact CD-ROM 2 has failed for almost everyone I know when trying to install certain programs. Any average user who gives this a first try as an install is going to be very angry and this would be bad for Linux on the desktop in general.
What to do? Sorry... but I don't have an answer. It still seems to me that one of the problems in making a "Linux for the desktop" distro is that a lot of us (Linux users/developers) are so far removed from the average user that we can't see all of the things that could be stumbling blocks. It's hard to sit back and remember the days when you didn't know what formatting a disk was. But that might be what's required. Maybe a sit down with your friends and family to find out what they might not like about computers in general (to know what to alleviate in Linux) might help too.
One more thing. Since you haven't made me a "foe", I am befriending you... I think you need a little pick me up.
I feel for you as far as losing your job and all... but trust me the rich white repubs that run the company you used to work for and eliminated your job have no regrets about what they did. You know that. And who's side are they on? Or more to the point, who's side is Rush on? I have a feeling he'd be partying with them at the thought of axing a few more employees to fatten their paychecks. After all, that's what capitalism is all about. Making money. If you tell me that the guys who put you out of work are non-white, "limp-dicked" ineffectual liberals, I think you are further out to lunch than you claim me to be.
Mod away buddy... There's plenty more karma to be had as I post more rational posts for the next few days.
If you can't contribute something useful to the conversation... go away. Looks like the pot calling the kettle black to me.
Please explain? Diversification? How? One OS. One set of applications. One ISP. How is this diverse for the people? It's diverse for Microsoft in terms of business, but the bottom line is... how does it help "Joe Average"? If Joe Average wants to be able to do something with his computer that Microsoft OS/Apps/ISP won't allow him to, but it's a legitimate need, how is Joe Average helped by a monopoly? Unless he has stock in the company, it doesn't. But.. if he has stock in the company, chances are he isn't really Joe Average then, is he?
What is this obsession that some people have with supporting business to an extreme degree? I admit, that I have ranted about evil big business before, but I am not 100% opposed to the idea of seeling products, working for decent pay, etc... The problem is that Microsoft already has a lot of money and their fingers in a lot of pies. To those who measure their success by wealth, Microsoft is indeed very successful. So, WHY should they need to keep trying to get more... and more... and MORE? What is the end goal OTHER than a monopoly?
OK... let's say that the uper-capitalists here on Slashdot win "the game" and Microsoft becomes the ONLY company that you can buy and operating system, applications and internet service from. What then? What has it gained anyone other than Bill Gates and the stockholders? Absolutely nothing!
Ahhh... But, what has been lost? How about, alternatives? Choice? Real competition? This is why the capitalist game is such a farce and it is also why OSS and Free software exist; To provide a balance to the one-sided notion that Microsoft or some other corporation should own everything.
Personally, money is a lot like toilets. Good to have when you need it. Otherwise it's a nuisance and really is not a true indicator of personal success. To really be successful at life, you have to be able to see WAYYY beyond your wallet. I think it's a development issue. Kind of how some people get stuck in the oral and anal stages of development. It think some people get stuck with some kind of insecurity that puts a little voice in their head that says, "More! MORE!!! MUAST HAVE MORE IF I AM GOING TO BE A WINNER!!!!!". If this is you, please get help. Your insecurities are holding back your personal development.
This Eric Raymond guy isn't very smart! By being very open about what he thinks about Microsoft's strategy, he's giving Microsoft the insight to actually defeat OSS! I call for opposition of full disclosure! Oh wait... this isn't an OS security discussion is it? Sorry folks. Wrong troll. ;P
Actually, this is a very entertaining read like all the other analysis of the Halloween docs.
No he isn't really physically fat. More like, mentally thick. Either way, he's still a total corporate loving bastard. A complete jerk and a liar. To him "I believe" = "It is so". Stupid idiot was always going on about Clinton not serving. Well what about Rush??? He didn't serve either! Any you WANNA KNOW WHY!??? Because he got a 4F rating. What for you ask? A boil on his rotund ass. "Owww.. daddy, I have a pimple on my butt. I can't serve in the armed forces! Wahh wahhh!!!" Stupid asshat.
This actually sounds like a really good idea. There have been rumors flying around that MS is planning on making a DB based filesystem akin to the way that Exchange mail stores work. This approach sounds better to me since it gives you the benefit of both approaches: a DB for fast file location and a true HFS that still allows legacy applications to utilize it. Knowing MS's usual approach they are probably going to negate their existing applications base with the filesystem. Users and admins will likely be in a similar predicament that the mixed-mode domains are currently in; patially NTFS and partially "Storage FS", "NTFS2" or whatever they wind up calling it.
I posted the following on Slashdot a while back and think it fits in nicely here, so I'll repost;
:) But, the only input devices we have are still limiting. The closest thing I've seen to something useful for text input is "Dasher". Combine this with eye tracking and I think you have a great solution for portable computing with no need for KB, twiddler, or the like. The other thing I think we should be looking at is the possibility of CLIs actually learning what we do most and creating aliases based on those actions with notification that we have a new alias that we can use for those actions. The other possibility is textual access to that same DB that the normal users would have in the GUI. This DB would allow us to use our machines in CLI mode with automatic suggestions for related commands, data, services appearing in a "scratch" location on the CLI for the machine's "stream of consiousness". It would become symbiotic. As we learn about our machines, and our machines learn about us, we augment each other. And THAT is what we should be working towards: computers that augment us as individuals while being as transparent or intrusive as the user desires.
I've been thinking about this at great length for the past year or so. The W.I.M.P. interface is going to be with us for a while no matter what we think of it. It will evolve and get enhanced by other developments in input devices (eye tracking, speech recognition, humanoid virtual androids, etc..), but will probably largely remain the same. The real "innovations" (for lack of a less used word) are to be had in new approaches to using the computer to actually get work done.
Unfortunately, I think Microsoft has us in a bad spot right now. I've heard rumours for a while that one of their big projects is some kind of storage/document management system. When you think about it, this makes sense for the business world as the "next big thing" because the suits don't care about data formats and don't WANT to learn about what type of data is compatible with other data. If my hunch is correct (based on the info I've seen in various spots on the net) they are planning to make a transparent, centralized (within an enterprise) mass data storage system that completely abstracts data from file formats. More then likely, the end result will be based on that DB centered filesystem we've been hearing about. So when a user creates data, whether it's graphic, text, audio, etc... it all goes into this DB with approapriate links drawn automatically between the different data. The user never has to think about file formats. They just create their data (which they will likely think of as "documents" with no type) and save it to their published "Folder". The filesystem/OS will take care of all the data type matching. Exchange and Windows XP for Pen Computing are the first glimpses at this kind of thing.
If we really want to get something new happening, we really have to start thinking about a few items:
1. Computers (even with W.I.M.P.) force people to interact in non-human ways.
2. To be truly efficient, every task that a computer could be used for requires different UI approaches to be "optmized" for that use. (Witness the turnkey systems out there for the button pushing monkeys to use)
3. You either have maximum flexibility and number of features at the cost of true ease of use, or you limit your user to make things easier to use. There is no compromise.
To tackle the first point: People have been working for so long on trying to make computers "user friendly" that they've added so many things that actually cripple the user. As Neal Stephenson pointed out in his essay, "In the Beginning There Was Command Line", many metaphors actually prevent the new device from being used to it's full potential. He had an example of a steam powered car that used reigns for steering because it was something people were familiar with. However, it's obvious to us now that the steering wheel (while a new concept) was actually the better interface. I think we need to question whether we really need to hold onto a lot of the metaphors in use today. Should we try and meet our machines halfway, especially since their eventual role will probably be to augment us in many ways? Or maybe we should come up with new, less limiting metaphors? I think it will all come down to how each individual uses their computer.
I know that I feel very limited by GUIs these days. It doesn't matter if it's Windows, Linux or MacOS. I've used them all and can easily move between all of them since they really aren't different at all anymore. However, I do get a lot more usability and flexibility from the CLI for the way I use my machines. Still... the CLI is limiting too. The time to integrate CLI and GUI into something more cohesive than just running an xterm in X, or CMD in Explorer has come. Why don't we have a CLI that has modern text editing facilities. There are many times when I wish I could do a text search through the text in my scrollback buffer. Or how about being able to "drag and drop" filenames to directories in a CLI window, instead of having both a GUI file manager and a CLI open? Or dragging a console command line out of a script you're editing to the desktop and having a new CLI window (or maybe a new tab if you have an MDI capable CLI) pop up with the line ready to execute by pressing enter. Or maybe a way to use the command history to create new scripts easily? Just arrow up to the commands you just used and tag them in the order you want them and have them output to a new script in your home dir. These are basically shortcuts that could make CLI life a lot easier. However, this still barely touches the real issue.
The real problem is that the computers (with ANY UI) still force users into limited ways of interacting and thinking. To manage your files, you have to think in hierarchical fashion even if that ISN'T the way that you work with real paper/books/printouts, etc... File management should be approached in a much different way than it is currently. (Most users I know never even touch their file managers unless they are going to read a floppy.) The "search" tools that many GUIs provide this to some extent, but it's only ephemeral. A search is not a permanent record of a state. The only "views" that we currently have in a GUI are limited to the way that a computer "tech" thinks, not a user. In fact, the very use of the word "file" may be an impediment to using a computer in the most efficient way.
If we take a more object based view. The data would make a slight transformation from "graphic image file" to simply; "Picture" regardless of the format. Text data would no longer be the mish-mash of formats that it currently is (ASCII text, "DOC", RTF, PDF). It would instead become "Letters", "Articles", "Recipes", "Source Code" "Personal Photos", "Promotional Pictures", etc...
Instead of the user arranging folders that contain all of these categories, the OS would already have a pre-ordered layout of filing by these categories. However, this would not be the normal folder structure that a filesystem uses, but it would be a database that manages the underlying filesystem. As new applications get installed, more categories for those apps get added if they don't already exist. When the user opens their personal information store, they would be presented with a list of the categories (with a bias towards the most often used types) to scan through. Once they select the ONE category they are interested in, all other categories dissapear from the list and a new interface is presented with the option to search for a specific document or select a "view". The "view" could be chronological, alphabetical, or relational. If they pick chronological, their choices can be Today, Yesterday, Within the Past Week/Month/Year, Specific Date. If they pick alphabetical, they get the options for Forward/Reverse order, or Specific Letter - Forward Reverse (Ablilities, Accidental, Actionable...). It they pick relational, they can select a specific document and it will present them with a "web" of all related documents on their system, network, or corporate enterprise. This is just a simple illustration of "what could be" for the typical end user. Let's take a look now at what could be for the advanced user.
A lot of times, I find myself with a strong desire to have access to my machines, but being limited by the other things I need to do in daily life. The concept of the wearable computer appeals more and more.
My second point is that depending on how you use your machine, certain UI/input device combos may be more efficient than a "one size fits all" approach. For instance a musician may want to use a computer with a KB, Mouse and a real mixing board input device for virtual studio work. Or an artist might want to use a tablet interface that allows them to draw on screen just as on paper. One of the things that Linux has going for it in this way is that you really could make dedicated distros for different types of work. This would be a great way to usurp Windows from certain arenas since MS would likely never take this appraoch as it would cost too much. But it needen't cost as much for Linux. The freedom it would allow for in UI design would be incredible. Imagine the new kinds of tools and approaches that could be created without being fettered by a "desktop" metaphor. This is where I think some extra specialized work needs to be done: hardware input devices. If we can get Linux to support as many input devices as possible, and combine that with very specific task focused distros (or a distro with "task plug-ins"), we could gain more acceptance in specialized fields.
The third factor is how much power to actually give the user. As we've all seen with the various W.I.M.P. interfaces out there, having more than one way to do something is great, but it gets in the way of user friendliness. I've seen plenty of people get EXTREMELY confused by seeing that they could minimize a window by clicking on the _ widget OR by left clicking on the application's window menu on the left side and selecting "Minimize", or by right clicking on the application's listing in the task menu and right clicking to select "Minimize", or... you get the picture. While it's nice to have all those options (especially as the user becomes more adept, it's likely to confuse the user). I still wonder why no one has taken notice of Nautilus' old (weak, but clueful) approach of having different modes: Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced. Someone need's to sit down and figure out what the easiest GUI thing for most users to do is and pick that ONE approach for a function. Then all of those simple approaches would become the "Beginner" settings. The "Intermediate" settings could incorporate other GUI based approaches that are less commonly used but might be preferred by a more intermeidate user. And the KB shortcuts (there should be one for every function in the GUI) are left to the "Advanced" user mode.
Instead of completely removing features to try and avoid confusing the user, the features should be categorized thoughout all apps and the OS environment into categories of some kind to limit what a beginning user is exposed to. Some people will never break past that, and that is fine. Others will want to explore and learn more. Either way... the real goal needs to be more humanization of the UIs, and more machination of the humans."
I suggest that the view that should be taken of this project is that the average user (especially in businesses) shouldn't need to know what filetype their data is or where it is kept on the storage system. They should be able to search through their data by the attributes that this project has created. The system should really do the "file management" for them behind the scenes. This is not something that the uber-user needs, but "Joe User" would probably find an OS that does these things a LOT more attractive than others...
Hey... you know what? Fuck you! I don't care who mods me down or how many times fucker. I have another account with more karma than you'll ever see. And I say the same things with it, so you can't keep me down. Go fuck your mom, I got her ready for you last night.