Face it Linux is not ready for prime time. Why, because I can?t sit my mother in front of a Linux box and expect for her to learn it and to like it.
Fuck traditional users. Seriously. I've stopped recommending Linux to Windows-using friends because most people are so used to getting things spoonfed to them, they don't stand a chance. These people don't even know how to do simple things. I have friends come to me and ask me about an error message they get in Windows. For the love of god, why not go to Google, put in your error message, and search for the answer yourself? It's like taking your car to the mechanic and telling him it's not working, when what's really happened is you ran out of gas.
1) Linux is free. Most users of Windows are pirates. A friend or family member has bootlegged a copy for them. Besides most you bought your distributions (That?s not free). So Linux being free is not a good reason.
I think all of my friends who run Windows have at least one piece of pirated software on their computer. But that's not the point, and I can't make the sweeping generalization that all Windows users are pirates based on that small sample space. Just like you can't make the argument that "most of [us] bought [our] distributions." I would think that the opposite would be true. So for those people with some morals, the fact that Linux is FAIB (Free As In Beer) is a very compelling reason to use it.
2) You get the source code of the OS. So what, I have never looked at the source. I never plan on looking at the source. So having access to the source is not a good argument.
I have never looked at the source code. But that doesn't matter. Other people look at the source code. Other people contribute. Just because I don't have the skills to hack out a driver for some unsupported sound card doesn't mean that Open Source Software is of no benefit to me.
3) Linux is stable. So is DOS. The Linux GUI is no stable. Software packages crash all the time. Stability is not a good argument either.
Stability is not a good argument? I think we place our priorities in different areas. I like knowing that a glitch in code won't bring my system to a halt, force me to spend 5 minutes rebooting, and possibly cause data loss. Sure, Netscape crashes too frequently. But a Netscape crash costs me maybe 10 or 15 seconds, whereas a MSIE crash that brings the system to a halt would cost much, much more than that (impacting other programs and data in the process).
4) Linux is customizable. Really?!. Most users, if given the opportunity, other than changing the background would never customize Windows or any OS. It?s too much work. That?s not a good argument either. It?s only a choice.
Again, fuck most users. I realize that most people think things like this are "too much work." But there are a lot of us who actually enjoy doing a little bit of work to manipulate something into the way we want it to work. I think most Windows users would think writing a script out to be tedious. I think a lot of Linux users would find it enjoyable.
...it's like people reading advanced philosophy it will never appeal to most people, and 'desktop philosophy' won't have mass appeal.
Again, we're back to that "most people" issue. And again, I have to say fuck most people. They aren't me.
Yes the ballot was approved by Democratic and Republican officials but I doubt any of those people have any User Interface Design skills.
But the users (voters) were shown the ballot beforehand. Even without the punch holes in place, it's clear that Gore is the third hole down. Furthermore, I think the ballot is made even more clear with the holes in place; the number next to the candidate's name matches up with the number on the hole.
whom exactly does this hurt? It would be just as difficult as making all of the text in 6 point type, the difference being large buttons would allow more people to see, the 6 point type would be discrimination.
I think making the ballot as simple as possible would be a Good Thing. But that should have been addressed before. It's important to note that Democratic (and Republican) officials approved the ballot prior to the election, but even more important to note that the ballot was public. Why didn't any of these people crying foul come out before and say something? It is the public's fault.
Notice that nobody has been blamed for the ballot issue, either officially or unofficially. Whenever somebody points to the ballot's (Democratic) creators, it's easy to point out that anybody could have brought up the issue earlier. These people are trying as hard as they can to convince themselves that somehow they are not responsible for their mistake. This is far more an issue of scapegoating than the censorware that we regularly flame here on Slashdot. But this time the only available scapegoat is the one looking back in the mirror.
I think it's clear that Bush would lose a revote. Or at least highly likely. But a revote should be 100% out of the question right now. People will vote differently knowing that the outcome of one county's vote will decide the election. The rest of the country would be in an outrage (except for the Gore supports who want to see him elected, fairness be damned).
The problems should be addressed. I've seen many accusations of African Americans being turned away. I've heard a lot about people being denied a new ballot after incorrectly marking their original one. But these accusations are so far not confirmed as having happened. The main issue here is if the ballot was unfair and misleading.
If that's what it takes to not have clusterfucks like this one, by all means make them that big. And remember, just because it was clear as day to you and me doesn't mean that it was clear as day to everyone else.
I agree 100%. This shouldn't be happening.
If I was going to win 100 million dollars if I could correctly predict the outcome of this thing, I would predict Bush to win. I think that Gore should have won, but that's not what happened. The ballot issue should have been handled prior to the election during the review of the ballot, but even moreso by the voters themselves in the voting booth. I think this election will not only go down as a model for "every vote counts," but as a model for "this is important, take it seriously and be absolutely sure."
In yesterday's Larry King Live show someone said that people were refused new ballots.
That's what one person said. I have intelligent friends who have told me that the ballot is confusing to them. I suppose you can convince yourself of anything if you try hard enough.
Someone at LKL also showed the card, and I must say that I find them very confusing.
I don't think you got a good look at it. Personally, I could have figured it out without the arrows and numbers. There is not only an arrow pointing from the candidate's name to the hole you should punch, there is a number next to that arrow that points to the corresponding hole.
Even CNN's political analyst Bill Schneider said that.
And other CNN political analysts have said that to claim the ballot is confusing is absurd.
OTOH, the parties had an opportunity (long before election day) to see that ballots and make an objection, which the Democratic Party did not do.
Precisely. Had this not been the case, I could clearly see the argument from the Democratic side. Fortunately, the law requires this review. The law was put into place for this reason. Now the Democrats are claiming that this precautionary measure isn't enough. Hogwash.
Right now I'm watching Daley live on CNN. Not only is he whining about how Gore won the popular vote (we all know that the popular vote has exactly zero to do with how the President is elected), he is complaining that approximately 19,000 votes weren't counted because they were punched twice. I'm not sure where this "above the law" attitude comes from, but I thought some of these people had more class than they are showing.
The form was a user interface nightmare and was not tested before being put into use.
It sounds like you want 3 inch square buttons with the candidates' names on them as a means of voting. The ballot was as clear as day to me. Not only is there an arrow pointing from the candidate's name to the hole you should punch for that candidate, there is a number next to the arrow that corresponds to the number in the hole that you punch! I would be embarrassed to claim that was confusing to me. I would be embarrased to live in West Palm Beach county.
I'm not sure why you think the ballot wasn't tested prior to be putting into use. Republicans and Democrats reviews the ballot and OKed it. Why was this issue not brought up earlier? This just astonishes me.
Market? And which particular 'market' are we talking about here? Can't these people not think in business terms?
On the contrary, I would argue that a market exists regardless of price (or lack thereof). I don't think the 2.4 kernel is as major of a release to the Linux community as Win2k is to the Windows community. I think in this case the word "market" refers to an operating system market, which Linux is a part of despite the fact that it's free. Perhaps the lack of a stable 2.4.kernel (and knowing that a stable kernel should be out Real Soon Now) might sway an IT admin to choosing to stay with NT-based machines.
Recall that Richard "Dick" Armey's site is blocked by Netnanny, Surfwatch, Cybersitter, N2H2, and Wisechoice because of his nickname. Of course this is more than mildly funny only because Armey is one of the many conservatives who believes that Censorware is the solution to the country's problems.
Even if the processor's power were reduced to nothing, there would only be a 30% savings in consumed power.
Only 30%? For most new laptops, that means almost an extra hour of battery life. If the Crusoe coule cut CPU battery consumption in half, we're looking at an extra 30-45 minutes of battery power in your laptop. That's not minor.
Imagine if GM came out with a way to give its Camaro the same power/weight ratio, but with a 15%-20% savings in gasoline consumption. It would be hailed as an engineering marvel in the auto industry.
Between the S4 and the old M3 ('97-'99), it would be a close one... I might go with the S4 just to be a little different. But between the new M3 and an S4, I think the M3 wins because of the added power.
I wouldn't mind an Impreza WRX either. But getting into non-American legal cars opens up an entirely new can of worms (mmm... Porsche GT3).
Yes, there is elitism in every community. Many Slashdotters wouldn't be caught dead using AOL. Driving enthusiasts would rather walk than use an automatic transmission. And audiophiles scoff at the notion of using a video game console as a source for music.
I consider myself a budget audiophile. I have a stereo that I feel sounds better than any of my friends'. And yes, I sometimes get caught up in the hype of what looks coolest, etc. To use computers as an example, how many Slashdotters would use an iMac even if inside was an Athlon 800 MHz with 512 MB of RAM? Ok sure, you'd use it, but don't tell me looks don't matter.
Perhaps I should get to my point. The way I see it, there are a couple of extremes in the audio world. The first is one that wants a system that sounds great and looks even better. Truly great-sounding audio systems rarely blend in to the decor of one's living room. So sacrifices have to be made. The other extreme could care less what the system looks like, as long as it sounds next-to-perfect. The latter could be placed in the genre of "audio hackers." They'll put coverings on the walls to absorb sound (I'm guilty of that one), have bags of sand to absorb vibration, and will usually have somewhat of a frankenstein system of components that don't look like they match. You won't find any remote controlled sliding glass doors with those folks.
So which of these groups would be more likely to accept a PS2 into their audio setup? Well, neither one, probably. Both groups generally have the philosophy that you should do one thing and do it right. The first group I mentioned figuratively drives the Audi TT (drives great, looks stunning). The second group drives the pieced-together Grand National (looks ugly IMHO, but hauls ass for the dollars you spend). The group that would use the PS2 drives the Dodge Caravan (wants a cheap, all-in-one box).
The goal of any journalistic organization is to report the news that is of interest to its audience. I don't need Rob or any Slashdot poster forcing his opinions down my throat. If you want to protest the MPAA by not buying DVDs, that's fine. But a personal agenda shouldn't prevent the posting of a story that has to do with DVDs.
A lot of people are trivializing this article as "just another software announcement" - and an old one at that. True, "Slashdot is not Freshmeat!" But I say it's much more than that. I don't have the URL handy, but there was recently a survey of current Windows users (including CEOs, CTOs, and IT admins). The subject was "Given that UNIX is considered much more stable than Windows, why not migrate?"
IIRC, about 4% said a move to a UNIX-based OS would result in incompatibility issues. Another 7% mentioned having to retrain employees. But approximately 84% replied that UNIX - and Linux in particular - has no support for viewing pornography in a video form. One Fortune 500 exec noted that the online porn industry is rapidly migrating to streaming video because of the high availability of bandwidth. Until Linux, BSD, etc. decide to support this vital part of the market, Microsoft will continue to dominate.
I really can't agree with you on that one. I was neither a geek nor a jock in high school. I hung out with the intellectuals and I hung out with the athletes. But have you ever noticed that the people who are well-liked and generally considered "cool" by everybody are the popular kids who are also nice to the less popular kids? You know, there'd by the guy who was the class president but would sit at the lunch table with you and shoot the shit. Or the girl who would say hi to you by name in the hall, even though she was one of the "popular" cheerleaders.
Then there are people who get into the whole geeks vs. jocks battle. The geeks think that the jocks are losers, and the jocks think that the geeks are losers. But they're really both losers because they insist that they're better than everybody else. The truly cool people are the ones who have their close friends in their clique, but who are also friends to those outside of that group.
Please excuse me for sounding like an after school special, but I've thought quite a bit about this subject.
this just shows how most adults never grow out of the high school mentality. they grow up, get jobs, and still can't see through the childish BS of their glory years.
I think that really has more to do with how people are raised. You mention how they can't see the error of their ways - I think they just don't know that it was an error. Young people are very susceptible to misinformation. Not to turn this into a religious argument, but how many Christians (to pick one group in particular) would be Christians if they, at age 18, having never heard of any religion, were given a Bible? What's the saying about the only difference between a religion and a cult is that the religion has been around longer? Anyhow, ignoring the fact that my example has to do with religion, I think you see what I'm saying.
...which of course is usually code for "we didn't like the way he looked" but in this case has been expanded to "we didn't like the way he thought."
Reminds me of the "independent thought alarm" from the Simpsons.
This kid was just plain selfish. He could have given everyone a voice who couldn't speak for themself, and instead he wanted to show off that he could walk away.
Sometimes actions speak louder than words. And I think "speak" really is the correct word in this case. Sure, he could have gotten up and ranted about the whole situation, but to tell the truth, I think not doing anything was a much classier way of handling it. Why is it that this reminds me of Brewster's Millions and his whole "Don't vote for me" campaign?
On that same note, I think that what the kid did can be equated to what some third-party candidates are doing right now. I think some of them will have more of a positive impact on politics by simply running than they would by winning.
If you, like most other Internet server admins with a fully-functional brain stem, prefer Unix over the NT kernel, then Mac OS X will be the first true consumer OS that you will ever feel comfortable with.
Come on, do we really need to take cheap shots like this? If you ask me, any "server admin with a fully-functional brain stem" would use the tool that best fits the job, even if that means (gasp) NT. Like it or not, Windows is better for some things. Personally I prefer UNIX systems, but that doesn't mean it should be my way or the highway (perhaps the corniest cliche ever uttered).
Is it just me who's tired of the "My OS can beat up your OS" wars?
This guy must never go to the software section of Wal-Mart if he thinks Linux being there is something new.
Some people say, "You must not get out much" as a way of saying that somebody isn't "cool." Some people say, "Oh, you haven't been to yet?" to imply that you aren't cool.
But you know you're a real geek when you say, "This guy must never go to the software section of Wal-Mart..."
Further, by making sure that just about everyone has some criminality in their background, arbitrary law enforcement is easier.
See if you can answer the following question correctly...
Speed limits are set below the 85th percentile (scientifically the safest speed) because:
a) Speed Kills!
b) Speeding tickets represent a very profitable tax on driving.
c) If someone is driving over the speed limit they can be pulled over for speeding and searched.
d) If someone is driving under the speed limit they can be pulled over for looking suspicious and searched.
e) All of the above and then some.
I've always wondered what a judge would say if I told him that I was obeying the speed limit by not driving below it (as in a lower limit, kind of like -1 is for sine and cosine curves).
By the way, for all the Nader supporters, Ralphie is in favor of a national speed limit. But I think that sits well with the majority of voters who are ignorant of the facts.
QNX is often compared to UNIX, LINUX and BSD. We do share the same POSIX APIs, and most code written for these systems ports easily to QNX, but the resemblance ends there. Based on 20 years of OS experience, QNX has a radically more advanced architecture. It's a massively scalable, multi-threaded, fault-tolerant, realtime OS designed for devices and computers of any type or size. QNX provides a unique network architecture where large full-service protocol stacks aren't required on each computer and devices plugged into the network are simply "discovered" automatically by other devices - all services and peripherals of the new device can then be used by any other device in the network. QNX is also the only self-hosted RTOS where the development environment and the runtime target environment are the same. And though we're not open source, we adopt an "open source" policy for hardware-specific drivers. This allows us to continually support the latest hardware advances, while still maintaining control of core technology. More importantly, it ensures QNX has a focused vision for the future.
Doesn't this make Linux look like a throwback to those old days of hobbies, like Amature Radio making QRP rigs in sardine tins?
Sounds to me like you're describing what the true definition of "hacking" is. Let's see, if you can get a certain amount of RAM by doing a little hacking for less than you'd pay in a store, what's wrong with that? People do this in their everyday lives. As I type this, I have a penny in my car, wedged between the stereo head unit and the side where it mounts to hold the thing in place. No, it doesn't look pretty. Yes, it did the job (and the price was right).
Perhaps in corporate, "everything must look nice and neat" environments, this isn't a valid solution for adding RAM. But for the CS student who has an old DIMM sitting around, it's pretty damn cool.
I see a lot of people complaining that many (Microsoft's in particular) EULAs are unfair, too restrictive, etc. "Taking away the rights of the consumer." But no EULA that I'm aware of takes away the right of the consumer not to buy the product. In my world, if I don't like an EULA, I don't use the software. MS doesn't force their software down the throats of consumers any more than any other company does. The write it, they put it on the market, and people buy it - EULA and all.
To me this seems like going out and buying a new Porsche and then complaining about how expensive they are.
As a general comment, the mutatable nature of Linux is percieved as a potential disadvantage all the time here on Slashdot. People here are always fretting that the big distros are becoming more Windows-like, that KDE/Gnome is going to force desktop bloat down their gullets, that GUI admin tools are going to take their beloved commandline prowness away, and so on. Microsoft just put a funny image on a fear that many Linux users already have.
You're right, I think the belief that Linux is somehow going downhill is certainly prevalent here on Slashdot. Part of it has to do with commercialization (most notably Red Hat), and part of it with the prevalence and focus on developing GUIs. Is it just me or does it seem like every time something gets popular the folks who have been there from the beginning start proclaiming its death? What some people fail to realize is that the "hardcore" aspect of Linux will live on.
I think it's kind of funny that MS's ad could essentially changed to a pro-Linux ad by interchanging the word "mutate" (with a negative connotation) to "evolve."
Slashdot Mirror
Face it Linux is not ready for prime time. Why, because I can?t sit my mother in front of a Linux box and expect for her to learn it and to like it.
...it's like people reading advanced philosophy it will never appeal to most people, and 'desktop philosophy' won't have mass appeal.
Fuck traditional users. Seriously. I've stopped recommending Linux to Windows-using friends because most people are so used to getting things spoonfed to them, they don't stand a chance. These people don't even know how to do simple things. I have friends come to me and ask me about an error message they get in Windows. For the love of god, why not go to Google, put in your error message, and search for the answer yourself? It's like taking your car to the mechanic and telling him it's not working, when what's really happened is you ran out of gas.
1) Linux is free. Most users of Windows are pirates. A friend or family member has bootlegged a copy for them. Besides most you bought your distributions (That?s not free). So Linux being free is not a good reason.
I think all of my friends who run Windows have at least one piece of pirated software on their computer. But that's not the point, and I can't make the sweeping generalization that all Windows users are pirates based on that small sample space. Just like you can't make the argument that "most of [us] bought [our] distributions." I would think that the opposite would be true. So for those people with some morals, the fact that Linux is FAIB (Free As In Beer) is a very compelling reason to use it.
2) You get the source code of the OS. So what, I have never looked at the source. I never plan on looking at the source. So having access to the source is not a good argument.
I have never looked at the source code. But that doesn't matter. Other people look at the source code. Other people contribute. Just because I don't have the skills to hack out a driver for some unsupported sound card doesn't mean that Open Source Software is of no benefit to me.
3) Linux is stable. So is DOS. The Linux GUI is no stable. Software packages crash all the time. Stability is not a good argument either.
Stability is not a good argument? I think we place our priorities in different areas. I like knowing that a glitch in code won't bring my system to a halt, force me to spend 5 minutes rebooting, and possibly cause data loss. Sure, Netscape crashes too frequently. But a Netscape crash costs me maybe 10 or 15 seconds, whereas a MSIE crash that brings the system to a halt would cost much, much more than that (impacting other programs and data in the process).
4) Linux is customizable. Really?!. Most users, if given the opportunity, other than changing the background would never customize Windows or any OS. It?s too much work. That?s not a good argument either. It?s only a choice.
Again, fuck most users. I realize that most people think things like this are "too much work." But there are a lot of us who actually enjoy doing a little bit of work to manipulate something into the way we want it to work. I think most Windows users would think writing a script out to be tedious. I think a lot of Linux users would find it enjoyable.
Again, we're back to that "most people" issue. And again, I have to say fuck most people. They aren't me.
I have a problem with the following: (snip)
Then don't use Linux, it's not right for you.
Yes the ballot was approved by Democratic and Republican officials but I doubt any of those people have any User Interface Design skills.
But the users (voters) were shown the ballot beforehand. Even without the punch holes in place, it's clear that Gore is the third hole down. Furthermore, I think the ballot is made even more clear with the holes in place; the number next to the candidate's name matches up with the number on the hole.
whom exactly does this hurt? It would be just as difficult as making all of the text in 6 point type, the difference being large buttons would allow more people to see, the 6 point type would be discrimination.
I think making the ballot as simple as possible would be a Good Thing. But that should have been addressed before. It's important to note that Democratic (and Republican) officials approved the ballot prior to the election, but even more important to note that the ballot was public. Why didn't any of these people crying foul come out before and say something? It is the public's fault.
Notice that nobody has been blamed for the ballot issue, either officially or unofficially. Whenever somebody points to the ballot's (Democratic) creators, it's easy to point out that anybody could have brought up the issue earlier. These people are trying as hard as they can to convince themselves that somehow they are not responsible for their mistake. This is far more an issue of scapegoating than the censorware that we regularly flame here on Slashdot. But this time the only available scapegoat is the one looking back in the mirror.
I think it's clear that Bush would lose a revote. Or at least highly likely. But a revote should be 100% out of the question right now. People will vote differently knowing that the outcome of one county's vote will decide the election. The rest of the country would be in an outrage (except for the Gore supports who want to see him elected, fairness be damned).
The problems should be addressed. I've seen many accusations of African Americans being turned away. I've heard a lot about people being denied a new ballot after incorrectly marking their original one. But these accusations are so far not confirmed as having happened. The main issue here is if the ballot was unfair and misleading.
If that's what it takes to not have clusterfucks like this one, by all means make them that big. And remember, just because it was clear as day to you and me doesn't mean that it was clear as day to everyone else.
I agree 100%. This shouldn't be happening.
If I was going to win 100 million dollars if I could correctly predict the outcome of this thing, I would predict Bush to win. I think that Gore should have won, but that's not what happened. The ballot issue should have been handled prior to the election during the review of the ballot, but even moreso by the voters themselves in the voting booth. I think this election will not only go down as a model for "every vote counts," but as a model for "this is important, take it seriously and be absolutely sure."
In yesterday's Larry King Live show someone said that people were refused new ballots.
That's what one person said. I have intelligent friends who have told me that the ballot is confusing to them. I suppose you can convince yourself of anything if you try hard enough.
Someone at LKL also showed the card, and I must say that I find them very confusing.
I don't think you got a good look at it. Personally, I could have figured it out without the arrows and numbers. There is not only an arrow pointing from the candidate's name to the hole you should punch, there is a number next to that arrow that points to the corresponding hole.
Even CNN's political analyst Bill Schneider said that.
And other CNN political analysts have said that to claim the ballot is confusing is absurd.
OTOH, the parties had an opportunity (long before election day) to see that ballots and make an objection, which the Democratic Party did not do.
Precisely. Had this not been the case, I could clearly see the argument from the Democratic side. Fortunately, the law requires this review. The law was put into place for this reason. Now the Democrats are claiming that this precautionary measure isn't enough. Hogwash.
Right now I'm watching Daley live on CNN. Not only is he whining about how Gore won the popular vote (we all know that the popular vote has exactly zero to do with how the President is elected), he is complaining that approximately 19,000 votes weren't counted because they were punched twice. I'm not sure where this "above the law" attitude comes from, but I thought some of these people had more class than they are showing.
The form was a user interface nightmare and was not tested before being put into use.
It sounds like you want 3 inch square buttons with the candidates' names on them as a means of voting. The ballot was as clear as day to me. Not only is there an arrow pointing from the candidate's name to the hole you should punch for that candidate, there is a number next to the arrow that corresponds to the number in the hole that you punch! I would be embarrassed to claim that was confusing to me. I would be embarrased to live in West Palm Beach county.
I'm not sure why you think the ballot wasn't tested prior to be putting into use. Republicans and Democrats reviews the ballot and OKed it. Why was this issue not brought up earlier? This just astonishes me.
Market? And which particular 'market' are we talking about here? Can't these people not think in business terms?
On the contrary, I would argue that a market exists regardless of price (or lack thereof). I don't think the 2.4 kernel is as major of a release to the Linux community as Win2k is to the Windows community. I think in this case the word "market" refers to an operating system market, which Linux is a part of despite the fact that it's free. Perhaps the lack of a stable 2.4.kernel (and knowing that a stable kernel should be out Real Soon Now) might sway an IT admin to choosing to stay with NT-based machines.
Recall that Richard "Dick" Armey's site is blocked by Netnanny, Surfwatch, Cybersitter, N2H2, and Wisechoice because of his nickname. Of course this is more than mildly funny only because Armey is one of the many conservatives who believes that Censorware is the solution to the country's problems.
More information is available at http://dfn.org/Alerts/contest.htm
Even if the processor's power were reduced to nothing, there would only be a 30% savings in consumed power.
Only 30%? For most new laptops, that means almost an extra hour of battery life. If the Crusoe coule cut CPU battery consumption in half, we're looking at an extra 30-45 minutes of battery power in your laptop. That's not minor.
Imagine if GM came out with a way to give its Camaro the same power/weight ratio, but with a 15%-20% savings in gasoline consumption. It would be hailed as an engineering marvel in the auto industry.
Between the S4 and the old M3 ('97-'99), it would be a close one... I might go with the S4 just to be a little different. But between the new M3 and an S4, I think the M3 wins because of the added power.
I wouldn't mind an Impreza WRX either. But getting into non-American legal cars opens up an entirely new can of worms (mmm... Porsche GT3).
Yes, there is elitism in every community. Many Slashdotters wouldn't be caught dead using AOL. Driving enthusiasts would rather walk than use an automatic transmission. And audiophiles scoff at the notion of using a video game console as a source for music.
I consider myself a budget audiophile. I have a stereo that I feel sounds better than any of my friends'. And yes, I sometimes get caught up in the hype of what looks coolest, etc. To use computers as an example, how many Slashdotters would use an iMac even if inside was an Athlon 800 MHz with 512 MB of RAM? Ok sure, you'd use it, but don't tell me looks don't matter.
Perhaps I should get to my point. The way I see it, there are a couple of extremes in the audio world. The first is one that wants a system that sounds great and looks even better. Truly great-sounding audio systems rarely blend in to the decor of one's living room. So sacrifices have to be made. The other extreme could care less what the system looks like, as long as it sounds next-to-perfect. The latter could be placed in the genre of "audio hackers." They'll put coverings on the walls to absorb sound (I'm guilty of that one), have bags of sand to absorb vibration, and will usually have somewhat of a frankenstein system of components that don't look like they match. You won't find any remote controlled sliding glass doors with those folks.
So which of these groups would be more likely to accept a PS2 into their audio setup? Well, neither one, probably. Both groups generally have the philosophy that you should do one thing and do it right. The first group I mentioned figuratively drives the Audi TT (drives great, looks stunning). The second group drives the pieced-together Grand National (looks ugly IMHO, but hauls ass for the dollars you spend). The group that would use the PS2 drives the Dodge Caravan (wants a cheap, all-in-one box).
Sorry, guess I went a little analogy crazy.
The goal of any journalistic organization is to report the news that is of interest to its audience. I don't need Rob or any Slashdot poster forcing his opinions down my throat. If you want to protest the MPAA by not buying DVDs, that's fine. But a personal agenda shouldn't prevent the posting of a story that has to do with DVDs.
A lot of people are trivializing this article as "just another software announcement" - and an old one at that. True, "Slashdot is not Freshmeat!" But I say it's much more than that. I don't have the URL handy, but there was recently a survey of current Windows users (including CEOs, CTOs, and IT admins). The subject was "Given that UNIX is considered much more stable than Windows, why not migrate?"
IIRC, about 4% said a move to a UNIX-based OS would result in incompatibility issues. Another 7% mentioned having to retrain employees. But approximately 84% replied that UNIX - and Linux in particular - has no support for viewing pornography in a video form. One Fortune 500 exec noted that the online porn industry is rapidly migrating to streaming video because of the high availability of bandwidth. Until Linux, BSD, etc. decide to support this vital part of the market, Microsoft will continue to dominate.
yes, of course I'm kidding
I really can't agree with you on that one. I was neither a geek nor a jock in high school. I hung out with the intellectuals and I hung out with the athletes. But have you ever noticed that the people who are well-liked and generally considered "cool" by everybody are the popular kids who are also nice to the less popular kids? You know, there'd by the guy who was the class president but would sit at the lunch table with you and shoot the shit. Or the girl who would say hi to you by name in the hall, even though she was one of the "popular" cheerleaders.
Then there are people who get into the whole geeks vs. jocks battle. The geeks think that the jocks are losers, and the jocks think that the geeks are losers. But they're really both losers because they insist that they're better than everybody else. The truly cool people are the ones who have their close friends in their clique, but who are also friends to those outside of that group.
Please excuse me for sounding like an after school special, but I've thought quite a bit about this subject.
this just shows how most adults never grow out of the high school mentality. they grow up, get jobs, and still can't see through the childish BS of their glory years.
...which of course is usually code for "we didn't like the way he looked" but in this case has been expanded to "we didn't like the way he thought."
I think that really has more to do with how people are raised. You mention how they can't see the error of their ways - I think they just don't know that it was an error. Young people are very susceptible to misinformation. Not to turn this into a religious argument, but how many Christians (to pick one group in particular) would be Christians if they, at age 18, having never heard of any religion, were given a Bible? What's the saying about the only difference between a religion and a cult is that the religion has been around longer? Anyhow, ignoring the fact that my example has to do with religion, I think you see what I'm saying.
Reminds me of the "independent thought alarm" from the Simpsons.
This kid was just plain selfish. He could have given everyone a voice who couldn't speak for themself, and instead he wanted to show off that he could walk away.
Sometimes actions speak louder than words. And I think "speak" really is the correct word in this case. Sure, he could have gotten up and ranted about the whole situation, but to tell the truth, I think not doing anything was a much classier way of handling it. Why is it that this reminds me of Brewster's Millions and his whole "Don't vote for me" campaign?
On that same note, I think that what the kid did can be equated to what some third-party candidates are doing right now. I think some of them will have more of a positive impact on politics by simply running than they would by winning.
If you, like most other Internet server admins with a fully-functional brain stem, prefer Unix over the NT kernel, then Mac OS X will be the first true consumer OS that you will ever feel comfortable with.
Come on, do we really need to take cheap shots like this? If you ask me, any "server admin with a fully-functional brain stem" would use the tool that best fits the job, even if that means (gasp) NT. Like it or not, Windows is better for some things. Personally I prefer UNIX systems, but that doesn't mean it should be my way or the highway (perhaps the corniest cliche ever uttered).
Is it just me who's tired of the "My OS can beat up your OS" wars?
This guy must never go to the software section of Wal-Mart if he thinks Linux being there is something new.
Some people say, "You must not get out much" as a way of saying that somebody isn't "cool." Some people say, "Oh, you haven't been to yet?" to imply that you aren't cool.
But you know you're a real geek when you say, "This guy must never go to the software section of Wal-Mart..."
:)
Further, by making sure that just about everyone has some criminality in their background, arbitrary law enforcement is easier.
See if you can answer the following question correctly...
Speed limits are set below the 85th percentile (scientifically the safest speed) because:
a) Speed Kills!
b) Speeding tickets represent a very profitable tax on driving.
c) If someone is driving over the speed limit they can be pulled over for speeding and searched.
d) If someone is driving under the speed limit they can be pulled over for looking suspicious and searched.
e) All of the above and then some.
I've always wondered what a judge would say if I told him that I was obeying the speed limit by not driving below it (as in a lower limit, kind of like -1 is for sine and cosine curves).
By the way, for all the Nader supporters, Ralphie is in favor of a national speed limit. But I think that sits well with the majority of voters who are ignorant of the facts.
from http://amiga.eden.it/news/QNX-Linux -en g.html:
QNX is often compared to UNIX, LINUX and BSD. We do share the same POSIX APIs, and most code written for these systems ports easily to QNX, but the resemblance ends there. Based on 20 years of OS experience, QNX has a radically more advanced architecture. It's a massively scalable, multi-threaded, fault-tolerant, realtime OS designed for devices and computers of any type or size. QNX provides a unique network architecture where large full-service protocol stacks aren't required on each computer and devices plugged into the network are simply "discovered" automatically by other devices - all services and peripherals of the new device can then be used by any other device in the network. QNX is also the only self-hosted RTOS where the development environment and the runtime target environment are the same. And though we're not open source, we adopt an "open source" policy for hardware-specific drivers. This allows us to continually support the latest hardware advances, while still maintaining control of core technology. More importantly, it ensures QNX has a focused vision for the future.
From last night's Simpsons...
"Whenever you notice something like that... a wizard did it."
"Wizard."
Doesn't this make Linux look like a throwback to those old days of hobbies, like Amature Radio making QRP rigs in sardine tins?
Sounds to me like you're describing what the true definition of "hacking" is. Let's see, if you can get a certain amount of RAM by doing a little hacking for less than you'd pay in a store, what's wrong with that? People do this in their everyday lives. As I type this, I have a penny in my car, wedged between the stereo head unit and the side where it mounts to hold the thing in place. No, it doesn't look pretty. Yes, it did the job (and the price was right).
Perhaps in corporate, "everything must look nice and neat" environments, this isn't a valid solution for adding RAM. But for the CS student who has an old DIMM sitting around, it's pretty damn cool.
I see a lot of people complaining that many (Microsoft's in particular) EULAs are unfair, too restrictive, etc. "Taking away the rights of the consumer." But no EULA that I'm aware of takes away the right of the consumer not to buy the product. In my world, if I don't like an EULA, I don't use the software. MS doesn't force their software down the throats of consumers any more than any other company does. The write it, they put it on the market, and people buy it - EULA and all.
To me this seems like going out and buying a new Porsche and then complaining about how expensive they are.
As a general comment, the mutatable nature of Linux is percieved as a potential disadvantage all the time here on Slashdot. People here are always fretting that the big distros are becoming more Windows-like, that KDE/Gnome is going to force desktop bloat down their gullets, that GUI admin tools are going to take their beloved commandline prowness away, and so on. Microsoft just put a funny image on a fear that many Linux users already have.
You're right, I think the belief that Linux is somehow going downhill is certainly prevalent here on Slashdot. Part of it has to do with commercialization (most notably Red Hat), and part of it with the prevalence and focus on developing GUIs. Is it just me or does it seem like every time something gets popular the folks who have been there from the beginning start proclaiming its death? What some people fail to realize is that the "hardcore" aspect of Linux will live on.
I think it's kind of funny that MS's ad could essentially changed to a pro-Linux ad by interchanging the word "mutate" (with a negative connotation) to "evolve."