I don't want specialized devices...
on
The Future of the Net
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The computer is the ultimate general purpose device that can simulate just about anything you can imagine (with the right hardware attached to it).
I don't want to do all of my work on a phone sized device - be that writing, developing software or surfing the web.
I do agree that more back-end storage will be remotely accessible via the web (for example, I keep my writings at home on an internal website that I access and create through an http client application (browser for the uninitiated) from any computer connected to my network.
That being said, there will always be applications that will need to run on the local machine for various purposes:
1. Video games. I can't imagine loading a video game binary image from across the internet every time I want to play it; load times are long enough when it is on the local box as it is. Also how would fees for this service be structured? I can justify a one-time cost for a client side app, and maybe even small fees for MMOG game access - but a per-use fee would be very bad on my pocketbook.
2. Plugins and enhancements to http clients. Again, there are certain things that a backend process running on a server will not be able to do as quickly as a front-end application running on the client.
3. Number crunching and software development. The very nature of the web makes the least common denominator the most common choices available. Moving all development off to the server would mean the loss of customization choices currently available to local developers. Additionally, I don't see companies providing the free CPU cycles to do any significant general purpose number crunching (without charging a hefty fee, of course).
Finally, a general purpose computer with standards based interfaces (PCI, AGP, USB, Firewire etc) allows much more flexibility for upgrading and extending the functionality of the device almost indefinitely. Specialized devices are too limited - while useful in their problem domain - these devices will not serve as the only means of delivering applications to users - particularly when we talk about the complexity of some of the key computer science problems before us.
Lets assume that the prediction is correct. I can see a time when only a few die-hards would have the computing power that is generally available today. That means your average person would be losing out on opportunities to define their own 'digital destiny' - essentially falling back into that 'producer/consumer' pattern (where producers are exclusively corporations, and consumers are the rest of us collectively) - while a few of us enjoy our freedom in quiet corners of the network. Now that I think about it, it might not be that bad after all...
As long as Open Source/Free software continues to provide functionality that proprietary software manufacturers are not willing or able to produce, or will only produce at a very exorbitant price, there will be a place for FOSS in any market segment.
From a format perspective people who depend on their livelyhoods should demand open standard formats. This way they future proof their work - and can not be held hostage by proprietary vendors who decide to force users to upgrade or lose functionality (a recent example of this is the Windows Media Movie Maker 10 breaking backwards compatibility with previous Media players - even version 9 of Microsoft's own product!).
"OMG - that command line is soooo harrrrd...I can't live without my GUI mouse pointing clicky dialog box drop down encrusted radio check box filled configuration management thingy. Stop it! You're making my head hurt!" - overheard from a Microsoftie when the subject of using the command line was broached.
Those who can, do. Those who can't - buy Microsoft.
They go on to spend enormous sums of money to destroy Netscape and win the browser war. Once the war is over, what do they do? Nothing. They let the technology stagnate...What was the point of Microsoft trying so hard to destroy another company and take over the market?
To make more money. Have you been living under a rock for the last 20 years? This has been Microsoft's modus operandi from the beginning. They could give a rat's ass about providing the public innovative technology - particularly in a market segment that they control or conversely they don't consider profitable. Microsoft only chooses to 'innovate' in segments where they need to differentiate themselves from the competition - and only enough to gain market share (or market control). After that, all bets are off.
To a certain extent this is endemic of most corporations because of the nature of what they do (make profits and raise the stock prices for their investors at all cost). Microsoft has just taken it to monopolistic proportions.
On the other hand, the emergence of FOSS onto the scene now provides the possibility that neglected segments will have their desires addressed at some level. Firefox is a prime example of how FOSS can offset stagnation in traditionally corporate controlled markets - and the internet makes publicity and distribution a fractional cost compared to traditional shrink-wrapped software.
"Publish or perish" is an oft quoted cliche in academic circles. This could be equally expressed as "address fractional market segments or lose overall market share" under these circumstances. Google is doing just that.
I am 41 - hardly 'ancient' by any stretch of the imagination.
I am the perfect age for my time; I tie together the past dead generations with the current and future generations. I am the sage of knowledge lost in the testing-mills we call the public school system.
The simple fact that you understood the correct usage of whom means you too must fall into that 'ancient' category - or you are an anachronism in your own time.
I will leave you with this universal advice: "He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it," - George Santiana
I saw the first moon shot - and saw them walk on the moon from my parent's black and white television. It still fills me with wonder - particularly when I consider that my great grandparents (whom I met before they died) were born into a world that only had steam and horse power.
The standard keyboards today cause much more pain in terms of finger stress as a result of providing a solid stop. The buckling springs used in the IBM keyboards of yore never gave me any problems - and had better tactile feedback than current keyboards by far.
Now, if they could make a silent keyboard that provided the same feel - I would buy it. (I don't know how they would do that though - the snapping of the buckling spring is probably inherent in its design)
I will say this again (I've said it a thousand times already) - you should not be a 'coder'. A one-trick-pony will find himself scraping for money when the going gets tough (like when you have a family, a mortgage, three car payments, and are sending your kids to college - and something happens that wipes out your savings).
Think of yourself as a computer scientist/architect, an integrator, a network expert and a software developer all wrapped in one person. Learn how to solve problems that don't just concern software - solve problems that entail systems (hardware, software, network, and other considerations such as business processes).
Sure, you might have some pet projects that are specifically software related. Nevertheless, do not lose sight of those other areas in the business environment.
Once you get filthy rich you can focus on software. Until then, as long as you work for someone else make your self as valuable as possible - and demand just compensation for your efforts on their behalf.
Finally, I wouldn't discourage anyone from pursuing a computer science degree; particularly if you get exposure to hardware and software concepts. It will make you better than your IT competition for that peach 'Jack-of-all-trades' job.
Building a more powerful and "correct" system would mean throwing away software such as OpenOffice, Mozilla, Quickbooks, Photoshop, Acrobat, etc.
I have to disagree with your logic here.
For one thing you could recompile the application only rewriting the parts that are OS specific (and with newer apps that are more modular you might not even need to rewrite much if any of it at all - just provide libraries to support the 'old' APIs). Open source would have an advantage in this arena.
Secondly, you have heard of emulators - for example WINE emulates the Windows OS environment so that you can run Windows application binaries without modification. While I agree that there may be a performance hit in terms of the numbers of instructions (potentially - although WINE has been shown to be very competetive - even compared to the speed of the regular Windows operating system) - you are not taking into account the advancement of computer technology. An example of what I am talking about would be running a DOS command line application under linux using dosemu on a 2 GHZ machine. The application will run blindingly fast compared to when it originally ran on a 386 16mhz machine back in 1986. I see similar performance gains when we talk about using emulators of our current OSs under a new OS paradigm with faster hardware (quantum computing anyone?).
On the hardware front, larger operations are now running NT and Linux virtual machines on IBM mainframes - the same approach could be taken for future consumer hardware as we move to multiprocessor systems - thus continue to support our older software as budgetary considerations require.
Given that, I don't think your argument holds much water.
May all your dilithium chrystals be plentiful and pure, and your ship be swift on its final journey.
One of the best scenes was in the movie about V'ger (StarTrek II?) when Scotty goes to use the computer after traveling back in time to our time - he trys talking to it, and then when pointed out that he should use the mouse, he attempts to talk into the mouse like a microphone. "Computer"!
I don't recall seeing him in many other roles - was he typecast after Startrek? A retrospective of his work would be interesting.
I used to play a great flight simulator back in the 1980s - Flight of the Intruder. You could fly F4 Phantom fighters, or the A6 Intruder. The backstory for the game was based upon the novel, and later movie of the same name detailing the experience of Naval Aviators during the Vietnam War.
Some of the neat aspects of this game:
1. The aircraft carrier actually moved through the ocean - and the deck would pitch up and down as you approached for landing at 'Yankee Station'. You would maneuver into position at the catapult following the instructions of the crewchief who would then launch you off the bow.
2. The map was a full scale replica of North Vietnam from Saigon to the DMZ.
3. Flight models were very realistic (you could stall the aircraft, and do maneuvers you would expect from the real deal).
4. You could watch surface to air missle batteries fire and the missles rise up to meet you (time to pop some chaff/flares and take evasive action!). Enemy aircraft would also come out to dogfight at times.
5. You could fly Wild Weasel missions - using Antiradar missles to destroy the guidance systems for the SAMs.
6. Your cockpit views were very realistic - you could look in 3 directions out side, and at a detail of the control panels.
One of the best flight sims I have ever owned - even though it only supported 4 color CGA graphics.
Sadly, the game used a timing loop based on the XT 8 mhz processor - so as I upgraded my PCs it became unflyable. The Pentium 100 mhz chipset did it in for good (you would launch and be all the way across the map in a split second).
The system would also allow the AACS group to reach into the house and change software if the system got hacked to produce unauthorized copies. That's a level of control rarely seen before the latest video game consoles.
But such control may alienate customers, analysts warn. Indeed, some consumer advocates complain that Microsoft is giving veto power over new technology to the risk-averse entertainment industry. Especially disturbing, they say, is the idea of buying a device that does something, only to have a piece of restricted content disable that feature later with a forced software "upgrade."
I'll be avoiding this technology like the plague. Thoughts of various Microsoft service packs blowing up my computers (breaking applications) come to mind.
I speculate that the reason more men than women get involved with computer development (hardware or software) has more to do with years of social programming than with innate interests.
Girls are taught that it is more important to be a supporter (cheerleader, wife, mother); boys are taught that it is more important to be the leader (football star, captain of industry, patriarch). From childhood through adulthood these messages and variations of them are reinforced with rare exceptions.
As long as Google is a black box that grows money, however, the investors are happy.
Given that some of their employees are NSA - I would expect this approach. I wouldn't be surprised if Google is doing Top Secret work for the government (remember the 'Total Information Awareness' office, that had its name changed) which would argue for keeping a lid on exactly what they are doing...
Actually it's a Posix compliant OS - not a copy of Unix.
And furthermore it is GPL'd (another invention of Americans) which means we can freely copy, modify, fold, spindle and mutilate to our heart's content (actually that goes for all the W3C standards as well, including http).
I'm one such power user, and the problem with Linux is that moderate customization requires intimate knowledge of the command line and Linux's quirks...
"Windows Poweruser" is an oxymoron...
The difference between Windows and a Posix Compliant OS is that Windows is, and will always be a toy slot-car, whereas *nix is Ferrari. Of course *nix is difficult - if it were easy any blockhead could be a computer scientist. Nevertheless, it is much easier to put a governor on a Ferrari engine, than to fit a Ferrari engine in a slot-car. And that is exactly what the Linux community is doing with some of the newer distributions. It is only a matter of time - there is not enough time for Microsoft to learn how to build a proper and consistent OS (and furthermore there is no impetus to do so from management) underneath the 'pretty' exterior.
I don't see that changing unless Microsoft changes the way they do business - which is not likely.
I had a similar situation several years ago - not quite to your level of pain. Nevertheless I was in the early stages and recognized it. I then switched to a split keyboard at work, and I was able to work for hours without any pain. I switched all of my keyboards at home over as well, and after 3 years of heavy use I've not had a twinge at all.
In my case it was the angle of my wrists that was the problem - the split keyboard rectified that.
The only problem is when other folks try to use my keyboard (such as the sysadmin when he has to load some software) they gripe to me about it... Tough - I'm not going back!:)
"According to the article, Don Johnson makes no more assumptions than the parent as to what is "wrong" with Windows and "better" about Linux."
Did we read the same article?
From the article:
"The third tradeoff for users is the matter of a proprietary or single architecture versus an open one that runs on several hardware platforms.
"Linux runs on just about anything, whereas Windows has a targeted platform focus," he said, adding that one of the main reasons people started looking at Linux was to avoid vendor lock-in.
"But the different Linux distributions, particularly those from Red Hat and Novell's SuSE Linux, also essentially lock them in as switching from one to the other is by no means easy, although probably not as difficult as migrating from Windows to Linux. But it is a lot more difficult than many of the distributors allow users to believe," Johnson said.
In the application space - where most end users reside - this argument is irrelevant. Open Office, for example, runs on all flavors of Linux that I have seen (there could be exceptions for purpose built systems that don't support X - such as firewall distros etc...but we aren't talking about using these distros on the desktop now, are we?). Also, exactly how are the distributors 'not allowing' the users to see how difficult or not the process is? You can download the competing distribution, and go through the process on your own to verify the veracity of that - that is about as open as it can get... In fact I recommend anyone contemplating a change from one distro to the next to do that testing to get the facts straight rather than depending upon someone with questionable motives.
Switching from one flavor of Linux to another is not a 'lock-in' at all - unless the end user demands one particular application that only runs on that version (the only thing I can think of are the system admin gui tools that differ from one distro to another - and why would an end-user be messing around with that? Furthermore, why would a sysadmin worth his salt be using a gui for system admin tasks anyway?)
Presumably these are businesses that were given the presentation - unless they are very small businesses they should have someone on staff who is handling their system admin duties now - and that person would be responsible for making the changes from one to the other as part of a migration effort (does a business really want their end-users to change the OS on their work computer?)
It baffles me that the conclusion could be drawn that any distribution 'locks you in' - particularly when compared to the Windows lock-in. No one who has loaded various flavors of linux for any significant numbers of machines would come to that conclusion unless he doesn't really understand the problem, or is a paid shill.
It all really comes down to the business model of the media publishers.
Over the past century the media publishers have continued to increase their profit for the same goods. Extension of the copyright life has served to increase this almost indefinitely. As long as there was not a vast web of computers connected via the internet this model works fine, however this medium of communcation does exist, and makes publication orders of magnitude cheaper than previous means.
The problem is the over-inflated profit margins of the 'legacy' publishing companies can not be supported in a free market where consumers are used to getting boundless resources for just a monthly access fee. Advances in technology allow musicians to record their own music just as well as the record labels (and actually many of the offerings from indie/free music are better than the vast majority of traditional record label offerings), allows writers to reach millions of potential readers, and software developers to distribute their own work without the overhead of packaging and promotion in traditional retail operations.
Extending copyrights, restricting file sharing to such an extent that it impinges on fair use, and holding the developers of software that supports it liable for damages is not the solution - it is only a short sighted bandaid to help companies maintain their profits at the detriment of invention and society in general. The real solution is for the traditional publishers to rethink their business model and accept the fact that profit margins will have to fall back to realistic levels, or they will lose customers.
Case in point: I no longer purchase traditional music CDs because of the inflated pricing and forced packaging. Instead I download indy/free music - which doesn't infringe on anyone's rights and is within the realm of what I believe is a reasonable price to pay (small or free - when compared to the major record label's prices).
Technology is ushering in a time when it is reasonable for individuals to make their own music, movies, and publish their own books. The middle-man in the sense of the large media distribution conglomerate is not needed, and most people are finding is not wanted. The more the conglomerates try to stem the tide of change through draconian means, the more people will search for alternatives that do not run afoul of the law and does not put more money into the inflated jaws of the media publishers. Publishing companies will either change their business model to play in this space, or perish due to the ill will they provoke in their (previous) customer base through insisting on pursuing an outdated business model.
The most interesting thing about all of this is how companies don't couch their lobbying for extensions to copyright and their efforts to 'stem the tide' as interrum measures. For all intents and purposes they are not attempting to change. This would be like radio companies lobbying congress to prevent televisions from being used to show programming in the 1930s - and all of us in 2005 sitting around a radio listening to the 'Slashdot' show. Time marches on, and breakthroughs in technology eventually become available to the public. Business has to be more flexible to deal with those inevitable changes when they come; this takes long term planning - which business is not good at (in an almost childish way; a child 'wants it now', and adult prioritizes, plans, and sets aside resources for the day when changes are needed to make the transition smooth). Instead the customer must deal with change - but the twist is the customers now have the tools to change and remove the middle man from the equation - which they will if businesses don't change their ways.
You would set up a VPN tunnel from your portable machine, into your home network - from there you could do everything you needed without worry of monitoring (banking, etc...)
Slashdot Mirror
If I was a betting man I would say that the Amaya browser created by the world wide web consortium probably would pass the test. Since the W3C also owns the CSS standards that is probably a no-brainer.
The computer is the ultimate general purpose device that can simulate just about anything you can imagine (with the right hardware attached to it).
I don't want to do all of my work on a phone sized device - be that writing, developing software or surfing the web.
I do agree that more back-end storage will be remotely accessible via the web (for example, I keep my writings at home on an internal website that I access and create through an http client application (browser for the uninitiated) from any computer connected to my network.
That being said, there will always be applications that will need to run on the local machine for various purposes:
1. Video games. I can't imagine loading a video game binary image from across the internet every time I want to play it; load times are long enough when it is on the local box as it is. Also how would fees for this service be structured? I can justify a one-time cost for a client side app, and maybe even small fees for MMOG game access - but a per-use fee would be very bad on my pocketbook.
2. Plugins and enhancements to http clients. Again, there are certain things that a backend process running on a server will not be able to do as quickly as a front-end application running on the client.
3. Number crunching and software development. The very nature of the web makes the least common denominator the most common choices available. Moving all development off to the server would mean the loss of customization choices currently available to local developers. Additionally, I don't see companies providing the free CPU cycles to do any significant general purpose number crunching (without charging a hefty fee, of course).
Finally, a general purpose computer with standards based interfaces (PCI, AGP, USB, Firewire etc) allows much more flexibility for upgrading and extending the functionality of the device almost indefinitely. Specialized devices are too limited - while useful in their problem domain - these devices will not serve as the only means of delivering applications to users - particularly when we talk about the complexity of some of the key computer science problems before us.
Lets assume that the prediction is correct. I can see a time when only a few die-hards would have the computing power that is generally available today. That means your average person would be losing out on opportunities to define their own 'digital destiny' - essentially falling back into that 'producer/consumer' pattern (where producers are exclusively corporations, and consumers are the rest of us collectively) - while a few of us enjoy our freedom in quiet corners of the network. Now that I think about it, it might not be that bad after all...
As long as Open Source/Free software continues to provide functionality that proprietary software manufacturers are not willing or able to produce, or will only produce at a very exorbitant price, there will be a place for FOSS in any market segment.
From a format perspective people who depend on their livelyhoods should demand open standard formats. This way they future proof their work - and can not be held hostage by proprietary vendors who decide to force users to upgrade or lose functionality (a recent example of this is the Windows Media Movie Maker 10 breaking backwards compatibility with previous Media players - even version 9 of Microsoft's own product!).
"OMG - that command line is soooo harrrrd...I can't live without my GUI mouse pointing clicky dialog box drop down encrusted radio check box filled configuration management thingy. Stop it! You're making my head hurt!" - overheard from a Microsoftie when the subject of using the command line was broached.
Those who can, do. Those who can't - buy Microsoft.
They go on to spend enormous sums of money to destroy Netscape and win the browser war. Once the war is over, what do they do? Nothing. They let the technology stagnate...What was the point of Microsoft trying so hard to destroy another company and take over the market?
To make more money. Have you been living under a rock for the last 20 years? This has been Microsoft's modus operandi from the beginning. They could give a rat's ass about providing the public innovative technology - particularly in a market segment that they control or conversely they don't consider profitable. Microsoft only chooses to 'innovate' in segments where they need to differentiate themselves from the competition - and only enough to gain market share (or market control). After that, all bets are off.
To a certain extent this is endemic of most corporations because of the nature of what they do (make profits and raise the stock prices for their investors at all cost). Microsoft has just taken it to monopolistic proportions.
On the other hand, the emergence of FOSS onto the scene now provides the possibility that neglected segments will have their desires addressed at some level. Firefox is a prime example of how FOSS can offset stagnation in traditionally corporate controlled markets - and the internet makes publicity and distribution a fractional cost compared to traditional shrink-wrapped software.
"Publish or perish" is an oft quoted cliche in academic circles. This could be equally expressed as "address fractional market segments or lose overall market share" under these circumstances. Google is doing just that.
Cool system admin tools and Microsoft Windows is an oxymoron.
I am 41 - hardly 'ancient' by any stretch of the imagination.
I am the perfect age for my time; I tie together the past dead generations with the current and future generations. I am the sage of knowledge lost in the testing-mills we call the public school system.
The simple fact that you understood the correct usage of whom means you too must fall into that 'ancient' category - or you are an anachronism in your own time.
I will leave you with this universal advice:
"He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it," - George Santiana
I saw the first moon shot - and saw them walk on the moon from my parent's black and white television. It still fills me with wonder - particularly when I consider that my great grandparents (whom I met before they died) were born into a world that only had steam and horse power.
The standard keyboards today cause much more pain in terms of finger stress as a result of providing a solid stop. The buckling springs used in the IBM keyboards of yore never gave me any problems - and had better tactile feedback than current keyboards by far.
Now, if they could make a silent keyboard that provided the same feel - I would buy it. (I don't know how they would do that though - the snapping of the buckling spring is probably inherent in its design)
I will say this again (I've said it a thousand times already) - you should not be a 'coder'. A one-trick-pony will find himself scraping for money when the going gets tough (like when you have a family, a mortgage, three car payments, and are sending your kids to college - and something happens that wipes out your savings).
Think of yourself as a computer scientist/architect, an integrator, a network expert and a software developer all wrapped in one person. Learn how to solve problems that don't just concern software - solve problems that entail systems (hardware, software, network, and other considerations such as business processes).
Sure, you might have some pet projects that are specifically software related. Nevertheless, do not lose sight of those other areas in the business environment.
Once you get filthy rich you can focus on software. Until then, as long as you work for someone else make your self as valuable as possible - and demand just compensation for your efforts on their behalf.
Finally, I wouldn't discourage anyone from pursuing a computer science degree; particularly if you get exposure to hardware and software concepts. It will make you better than your IT competition for that peach 'Jack-of-all-trades' job.
Building a more powerful and "correct" system would mean throwing away software such as OpenOffice, Mozilla, Quickbooks, Photoshop, Acrobat, etc.
I have to disagree with your logic here.
For one thing you could recompile the application only rewriting the parts that are OS specific (and with newer apps that are more modular you might not even need to rewrite much if any of it at all - just provide libraries to support the 'old' APIs). Open source would have an advantage in this arena.
Secondly, you have heard of emulators - for example WINE emulates the Windows OS environment so that you can run Windows application binaries without modification. While I agree that there may be a performance hit in terms of the numbers of instructions (potentially - although WINE has been shown to be very competetive - even compared to the speed of the regular Windows operating system) - you are not taking into account the advancement of computer technology. An example of what I am talking about would be running a DOS command line application under linux using dosemu on a 2 GHZ machine. The application will run blindingly fast compared to when it originally ran on a 386 16mhz machine back in 1986. I see similar performance gains when we talk about using emulators of our current OSs under a new OS paradigm with faster hardware (quantum computing anyone?).
On the hardware front, larger operations are now running NT and Linux virtual machines on IBM mainframes - the same approach could be taken for future consumer hardware as we move to multiprocessor systems - thus continue to support our older software as budgetary considerations require.
Given that, I don't think your argument holds much water.
May all your dilithium chrystals be plentiful and pure, and your ship be swift on its final journey.
One of the best scenes was in the movie about V'ger (StarTrek II?) when Scotty goes to use the computer after traveling back in time to our time - he trys talking to it, and then when pointed out that he should use the mouse, he attempts to talk into the mouse like a microphone. "Computer"!
I don't recall seeing him in many other roles - was he typecast after Startrek? A retrospective of his work would be interesting.
I used to play a great flight simulator back in the 1980s - Flight of the Intruder. You could fly F4 Phantom fighters, or the A6 Intruder. The backstory for the game was based upon the novel, and later movie of the same name detailing the experience of Naval Aviators during the Vietnam War.
Some of the neat aspects of this game:
1. The aircraft carrier actually moved through the ocean - and the deck would pitch up and down as you approached for landing at 'Yankee Station'. You would maneuver into position at the catapult following the instructions of the crewchief who would then launch you off the bow.
2. The map was a full scale replica of North Vietnam from Saigon to the DMZ.
3. Flight models were very realistic (you could stall the aircraft, and do maneuvers you would expect from the real deal).
4. You could watch surface to air missle batteries fire and the missles rise up to meet you (time to pop some chaff/flares and take evasive action!). Enemy aircraft would also come out to dogfight at times.
5. You could fly Wild Weasel missions - using Antiradar missles to destroy the guidance systems for the SAMs.
6. Your cockpit views were very realistic - you could look in 3 directions out side, and at a detail of the control panels.
One of the best flight sims I have ever owned - even though it only supported 4 color CGA graphics.
Sadly, the game used a timing loop based on the XT 8 mhz processor - so as I upgraded my PCs it became unflyable. The Pentium 100 mhz chipset did it in for good (you would launch and be all the way across the map in a split second).
I'll be avoiding this technology like the plague. Thoughts of various Microsoft service packs blowing up my computers (breaking applications) come to mind.
I speculate that the reason more men than women get involved with computer development (hardware or software) has more to do with years of social programming than with innate interests.
Girls are taught that it is more important to be a supporter (cheerleader, wife, mother); boys are taught that it is more important to be the leader (football star, captain of industry, patriarch). From childhood through adulthood these messages and variations of them are reinforced with rare exceptions.
My own observations tend to support this theory.
As long as Google is a black box that grows money, however, the investors are happy.
Given that some of their employees are NSA - I would expect this approach. I wouldn't be surprised if Google is doing Top Secret work for the government (remember the 'Total Information Awareness' office, that had its name changed) which would argue for keeping a lid on exactly what they are doing...
Actually it's a Posix compliant OS - not a copy of Unix.
And furthermore it is GPL'd (another invention of Americans) which means we can freely copy, modify, fold, spindle and mutilate to our heart's content (actually that goes for all the W3C standards as well, including http).
I'm one such power user, and the problem with Linux is that moderate customization requires intimate knowledge of the command line and Linux's quirks...
"Windows Poweruser" is an oxymoron...
The difference between Windows and a Posix Compliant OS is that Windows is, and will always be a toy slot-car, whereas *nix is Ferrari. Of course *nix is difficult - if it were easy any blockhead could be a computer scientist. Nevertheless, it is much easier to put a governor on a Ferrari engine, than to fit a Ferrari engine in a slot-car. And that is exactly what the Linux community is doing with some of the newer distributions. It is only a matter of time - there is not enough time for Microsoft to learn how to build a proper and consistent OS (and furthermore there is no impetus to do so from management) underneath the 'pretty' exterior.
I don't see that changing unless Microsoft changes the way they do business - which is not likely.
It might not be easy to have a test system - particularly if the CFO won't release the funds for it.
There is no black or white in anything - this subject included.
Intel has just been added to my boycott list - joining Microsoft, and SCO near the top.
My next machine will be an AMD, no question about it.
I had a similar situation several years ago - not quite to your level of pain. Nevertheless I was in the early stages and recognized it. I then switched to a split keyboard at work, and I was able to work for hours without any pain. I switched all of my keyboards at home over as well, and after 3 years of heavy use I've not had a twinge at all.
:)
In my case it was the angle of my wrists that was the problem - the split keyboard rectified that.
The only problem is when other folks try to use my keyboard (such as the sysadmin when he has to load some software) they gripe to me about it... Tough - I'm not going back!
"According to the article, Don Johnson makes no more assumptions than the parent as to what is "wrong" with Windows and "better" about Linux."
Did we read the same article?
From the article:
"The third tradeoff for users is the matter of a proprietary or single architecture versus an open one that runs on several hardware platforms.
"Linux runs on just about anything, whereas Windows has a targeted platform focus," he said, adding that one of the main reasons people started looking at Linux was to avoid vendor lock-in.
"But the different Linux distributions, particularly those from Red Hat and Novell's SuSE Linux, also essentially lock them in as switching from one to the other is by no means easy, although probably not as difficult as migrating from Windows to Linux. But it is a lot more difficult than many of the distributors allow users to believe," Johnson said.
In the application space - where most end users reside - this argument is irrelevant. Open Office, for example, runs on all flavors of Linux that I have seen (there could be exceptions for purpose built systems that don't support X - such as firewall distros etc...but we aren't talking about using these distros on the desktop now, are we?). Also, exactly how are the distributors 'not allowing' the users to see how difficult or not the process is? You can download the competing distribution, and go through the process on your own to verify the veracity of that - that is about as open as it can get... In fact I recommend anyone contemplating a change from one distro to the next to do that testing to get the facts straight rather than depending upon someone with questionable motives.
Switching from one flavor of Linux to another is not a 'lock-in' at all - unless the end user demands one particular application that only runs on that version (the only thing I can think of are the system admin gui tools that differ from one distro to another - and why would an end-user be messing around with that? Furthermore, why would a sysadmin worth his salt be using a gui for system admin tasks anyway?)
Presumably these are businesses that were given the presentation - unless they are very small businesses they should have someone on staff who is handling their system admin duties now - and that person would be responsible for making the changes from one to the other as part of a migration effort (does a business really want their end-users to change the OS on their work computer?)
It baffles me that the conclusion could be drawn that any distribution 'locks you in' - particularly when compared to the Windows lock-in. No one who has loaded various flavors of linux for any significant numbers of machines would come to that conclusion unless he doesn't really understand the problem, or is a paid shill.
This study only proves that spam is an incredibly effective propaganda tool.
As such it is too dangerous to leave in the hands of the public...
It all really comes down to the business model of the media publishers.
Over the past century the media publishers have continued to increase their profit for the same goods. Extension of the copyright life has served to increase this almost indefinitely. As long as there was not a vast web of computers connected via the internet this model works fine, however this medium of communcation does exist, and makes publication orders of magnitude cheaper than previous means.
The problem is the over-inflated profit margins of the 'legacy' publishing companies can not be supported in a free market where consumers are used to getting boundless resources for just a monthly access fee. Advances in technology allow musicians to record their own music just as well as the record labels (and actually many of the offerings from indie/free music are better than the vast majority of traditional record label offerings), allows writers to reach millions of potential readers, and software developers to distribute their own work without the overhead of packaging and promotion in traditional retail operations.
Extending copyrights, restricting file sharing to such an extent that it impinges on fair use, and holding the developers of software that supports it liable for damages is not the solution - it is only a short sighted bandaid to help companies maintain their profits at the detriment of invention and society in general. The real solution is for the traditional publishers to rethink their business model and accept the fact that profit margins will have to fall back to realistic levels, or they will lose customers.
Case in point: I no longer purchase traditional music CDs because of the inflated pricing and forced packaging. Instead I download indy/free music - which doesn't infringe on anyone's rights and is within the realm of what I believe is a reasonable price to pay (small or free - when compared to the major record label's prices).
Technology is ushering in a time when it is reasonable for individuals to make their own music, movies, and publish their own books. The middle-man in the sense of the large media distribution conglomerate is not needed, and most people are finding is not wanted. The more the conglomerates try to stem the tide of change through draconian means, the more people will search for alternatives that do not run afoul of the law and does not put more money into the inflated jaws of the media publishers. Publishing companies will either change their business model to play in this space, or perish due to the ill will they provoke in their (previous) customer base through insisting on pursuing an outdated business model.
The most interesting thing about all of this is how companies don't couch their lobbying for extensions to copyright and their efforts to 'stem the tide' as interrum measures. For all intents and purposes they are not attempting to change. This would be like radio companies lobbying congress to prevent televisions from being used to show programming in the 1930s - and all of us in 2005 sitting around a radio listening to the 'Slashdot' show. Time marches on, and breakthroughs in technology eventually become available to the public. Business has to be more flexible to deal with those inevitable changes when they come; this takes long term planning - which business is not good at (in an almost childish way; a child 'wants it now', and adult prioritizes, plans, and sets aside resources for the day when changes are needed to make the transition smooth). Instead the customer must deal with change - but the twist is the customers now have the tools to change and remove the middle man from the equation - which they will if businesses don't change their ways.
You would set up a VPN tunnel from your portable machine, into your home network - from there you could do everything you needed without worry of monitoring (banking, etc...)