Part of the responsibility of the highest office in the land is to make the tough calls, and he totally failed it on that one.
Considering that every one of his advisors recommended against the pardon, and he still did it, I'd say that was a tough call.
The other thing that all the people that froth at the mouth about this (still) forget is that an article of impeachment |=criminal charges. In fact, Nixon hadn't been indicted in the legal system, when the pardon was issued. Now, whether he would have been, and whether he would have convicted is something that can be argued (and probably will be) for a long time.
Ubuntu is a fairly good Linux distribution, with a pretty good set up. The Firefox update issue is probably not a fair consideration, since it's not actually Canonical, it's a function of Debian's issues with Mozilla.
The problem I have with Ubuntu's push is that it isn't really being pushed as a desktop for business so much as it is a desktop for the average user, to replace Windows or Mac. Unfortunately, it isn't ready for that, and it may actually be hurting itself because of it. If you're saying to people "Just download the CD's, and install it, it'll work with no problems.", you're asking for trouble. The people that are willing to give it a try are not expecting a Windows/Mac clone, but they do have certain expectations! Principally, that they're not going to spend the next three months learning how to debug, compile, edit configurations, and spend hours searching through various wikis, FAQ's, and web sites to actually use their computer for something.
These are the "first adopters", and the more unpleasant their experience, the harder is to get Linux out of the server/geek realm and into the home. It's been my experience that server OS's tend to make mediocre desktop OS's. That's been true whether it's Linux or Windows or (fill in the blank). The things you need to do on a server are different from what you need on most desktops. There's also a difference in needs between a business desktop and a home desktop. I think Linux is (mostly) ready to be a serious contender on the business desktop. Unfortunately, it isn't ready to be one on the home desktop. I think it could be one, but the community needs to listen and to look at what the average user actually is running into.
Here's a quote I found about Linux on the desktop on one of the other boards I frequent, that really helps summarize what needs to happen: "Come on nerds, would it really be such a terrible thing to spend $180 for a Linux will full hardware drivers and software codecs plus telephone support or even to pay $50 for a CD that gives you everything in the way of proprietary drivers and codecs ready to go for all your hardware and multimedia as opposed to spending hours and hours and hours downloading just bits and pieces of the solutions from all over the place and fighting to get them working? It's not like people who really want to couldn't still do that, but a simple, truly easy, less expensive alternative to the $400 Vista for the average Joe is what it is going to take to get the average Joe to come over from the dark side--and no one is ever going to have a prayer of winning the fight for open standards as long as all those ordinary Joe's are still living on the dark side."
That was a makeover of the original Colossal Cave (Adventure/Advent) text game. One of the more influential games, and the first adventure game, it had some of its features like "you are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike" copied into other games. I remember spending hours trying to work through it on a VAX 11/780. There were several ports done, and I played one a few years back, and it was still addictive. A great piece of gaming history, and something everyone should try - it's still fun, and shows that you don't always need enormous graphics and processors to make a great game.
The real solution to make Linux more mainstream is to make users more computer litterate.
Leaving aside the spelling miscue:-), you're not asking for computer literacy, you're asking for Linux literacy. There's been a god-awful amount of $$ pumped into the educational system over the past 15 years to develop "computer literacy." You can't go into any school system without seeing computers these days, and quite a large percentage of people have computers in their home. Are they computer literate? In terms of being able to use the computer, yes. Most people can figure out how to start their computer, hook it to the Internet, browse the web, check their e-mail, use a word processor, print documents, and even download and install programs these days. Unfortunately, they're doing this in Windows and MacOS X
The problem is that "computer literacy" is a moving target, frequently defined as "I know this, so everyone else should know it." I know how to build a computer from component parts. If you don't then you're computer illiterate. You know how to build a Beowulf cluster, I don't. I'm computer illiterate. What Stallman pointed out is that there's differences in computer literacy, and what we should expect from your average, moderately literate user. Compared with what existed back in the early '80's, most people today are computer literate.
What is being said is that while we can slam MS and Apple all we want, we also have to, if we want the desktop, look at what they do right. If I download an open source media player in Windows and install it, after I've done some check marks on choices during the installation, it's configured. I don't have to tell Firefox, Opera, Thunderbird, or whatever to use it as a default. Compare that with even the easier Linux distros, where you may have to edit several config files, or download and install another set of packages to enable it, and so on. Yes, I can do that, but just because I can, it doesn't mean I like it, or that I'd expect everyone else to be able to do it. If Linux can't move on things like that, then it is always going to be a server OS, and everyone should just STFU about using it on a desktop computer.
This ignores the population that will run silly "cupholder" executables and trojan filled "free screensavers," at every opportunity whether in Linux, Unix, or Windows, but then real stupidity trumps artificial intelligence every time.
Which was my point. I cringe every time that someone says "I can't get a virus because I'm running Linux!" Linux makes it more difficult than Windows by several orders of magnitude, but it doesn't mean that it's impossible. In case you're wondering, I have seen people who should have known better running as root on their computers. Their reasoning was related to your last sentence - it was "easier to run as root for what I'm doing." (sob) (head pounding) Running a given operating system does not incur automatic protection in the absence of proper procedure.
However, they don't spread a lot (because if someone uses linux, he has enough knowledge not to open an attachment/install an unknown file.)
Well, one *hopes* they have that! That practice has been a mainstay since the first viruses cropped up. However, believing that you're safe because you're running Linux, without following good practices is pretty dumb too. The first time someone's running as root and downloads an untrustworthy file...
Yes, it's harder to get viruses in Linux, and the ones that are out there tend not to be as able to spread as the Windows ones. That doesn't mean that you get to forget standard security practices.
ts a shame that those running/. give you extra karma for ignorant totally off the wall remarks that you make.
Everyone else.. feast your eyes..
It's pretty clear that you're equating "eye candy" with "functionality". You also don't seem to grasp that in the context I used it, desktop refers to the desktop computer. In general, operating systems originally meant for servers do not necessarily make good general-purpose desktop computer operating systems. Just because they can be used doesn't mean they're great at it - they tend to be mediocre at best.
Actually, the majority of Linux users and contributors are pretty focused on Linux on the server, and are not all that interested in it on the desktop. Of the 20 or so regular Linux contributors in my office right now, only two I know of are running it on the desktop.
That really points up (besides your other excellent points) one of the barriers to Linux as a desktop OS, even in a business environment. There are applications for Linux that are state of the art, best of breed for what they do - but they tend to be directly related to a server task or management. Other applications range from very good to lousy. Some don't exist at all on Linux. I recently worked with one group investigating the opportunity to move to a Linux desktop. There were 5 applications that were mandatory. For two applications, Linux was either the best choice, or an equal choice with any other OS. These just happened to be server related functions. A third application was promising, except for it being in beta and with limited hardware support. The forth application was bloated, inefficient, and a nightmare to customise. The fifth didn't exist on Linux - not as a port, not as an OSS project, nothing on the horizon. As much as they wanted to move to Linux, it simply wasn't feasible.
If I have criticisms of OSS, it's related to that. A shiny, "cool" project that relates to Linux as a server will attract a ton of developers, while some dull, routine desktop function that a clerical person needs will attract no one. The result is that Linux is now an outstanding server OS, but a mediocre desktop.
In the article, he a section on the potential hazard of Vista disabling video resolution in medical imaging applications. Leaving aside any issues of playing CD's in a work computer, I can see one outcome of this. The first time a blown diagnosis can be blamed on this, the malpractice lawyers will be heading after Microsoft. It's something they've got to be salivating over: The ultimate deep pockets! (cue theme from Jaws)
The "military" does not employ scientist to just muck around in labs and come up with something. There are notible exceptions. During WWII, many counrties did just that, and we got cyanoacrylate.
Umm.. actually, it does. Up until Bill Gates decided to throw a ton of money at malaria research, the US military was pretty much the only game in town. If you look at much of the tropical medicine research done in this country, you'll quickly find that it's being done or funded by the military. It doesn't get much news coverage, because most of these are diseases that people in developed countries never hear of.
Here's an example of something I got a kick out of. Recently in the news there was coverage of a technology that NYC is using to monitor the water quality of its reservoirs, and to detect any potential attack by terrorists. They use fish (bluegills) in a chamber, monitored by computers. I happen to know exactly how that works, and how it came to be developed. A scientist employed by the Army had an idea about how to use fish to monitor ground water contamination at military bases, and "mucked about" to come up with it and get it working. How do I know? I was there.
Now, your idea that the military doesn't innovate, it invests, isn't quite correct. But the same holds true of the private sector.
People have huge quantities of documents already in Word format. If there's never any reliable way of translating them into an open format, then those people will never switch to an open format.
Exactly! Like it or not, Office is the 800 pound gorilla, at the moment. It might help people here to remember that at one time, WordPerfect was the 800 pound gorilla. One of the standard features in Word 6 was to not only read and save into the WP format, but you could also enable it to use the WP command set. Microsoft didn't do this out of the goodness of its heart (insert laughter and obligatory sarcasm here), but because if it wanted Word to be adopted, it had to be able to read the format of the dominant word processing package.
On the other hand, demanding "perfect translation" is a bit of a stretch too, since it's hard to get that between Word versions. All you need is someone still using Word '97 when you send them something to find that out.
Is the FSF seriously backing a "distro" that's just Ubuntu with the logos and useful software taken out and calling it gNewSense (which sounds a/lot/ like gNuisance)?
Yes, unfortunately, yes. To quote: take all the binary blobs out..., which I read as "removing all the drivers everyone else has been begging the hardware manufacturers to provide for Linux," along with any software that might have been released to run under Linux, but isn't "free" or (gasp) open source!
"Microsoft is evil! Vista is the spawn of the devil, it's awful, terrible and will rob you of your freedom! Oh, please, please use this crippled Linux distribution instead!" This whole campaign looks almost like Microsoft designed it for them. I'm sure there's a lot of snickering going on in Redmond.
The newspaper article is a not quite accurate either, although it has less hyperbole than the parent. What the study actually says is that it appears that the sensory nervous system is playing a role in the development and progression of diabetes. That is the "blockbuster", since it was thought to be an autoimmune disease.
If verified, it provides yet another avenue of investigation into diabetes control and possibly cure, but this is a first study. A lot of work needs to be done to go between this and a standard treatment.
Important? Yes. Break out the champagne and declare diabetes is cured? No.
are they capable of saying "I don't know, I need help here."
If they do answer this correctly, it also helps to ask some follow-up questions about where or how they would go about getting that help. I wouldn't expect most techs these days to know how to make a Centronics to RS232 printer cable from the components. There hasn't been a need to do that in a long time. But I would be able to explain how I would start to find information on how to do it - including finding out what a Centronics plug was.
Video Cards work out of the box for the purposes of using the card for non - 3D accelerated game purposes, unless you're stuck on basing your computer use on it being a game console.
And you just pinged someone on anecdotal versus empirical? It depends on the video card, and the particular distro. Even the more popular ones have been known to approximate the video, while not being exact. Which is why I can do a help search on, say Ubuntu, and find help tips on editing xorg.conf. Which is different from "out of the box."
On one of the discussion boards I frequent, we're spending a lot of time walking new Ubuntu users through something that is a piece of cake in Windows and Mac OS. Viewing and playing media files in a browser. I'm not talking about some proprietary format, I'm talking about MPEG, WAV, and midi files. Doable? Yes. "Out of the box install"? No.
I bring these up not to slam Linux so much as to point out that rabid fanboi behavior is counterproductive as well. Pointing out that various distro's have problems on install, and most definitely are not always "quick, easy, with no issues" should be incentive for improvement in those areas. Screaming that "you bought the wrong equipment!" or "You're a MS apologist!" or questioning the competence of the person just hurts the chances of acceptance of Linux on the desktop, and doesn't solve the problem.
I'm an OS agnostic. I've been around for a long time, and I've been through a lot of OS's. I had to be dragged kicking and screaming away from CLI to GUI, but I got over it. Every OS I've ever used has had issues. They've all had their good points too. There are some areas where Linux is my preferred OS. It does everything I need it to do in those areas, it does them better than anything else. There are other areas where Windows is my preferred OS. It does everything I need it to do in that area, and it does them better than anything else. In some areas, Mac OS is my preferred OS.
There's a reason why I have a preferred OS for various areas. Sometimes, the applications don't exist in one OS but do in the other. Sometimes the applications are clumsy, with limited capabilties or poor implementation compared to the others. Saying I can't use one OS in that area because of those factors doesn't make me an apologist for the other OS's, or that I'm against the OS. It's a statement of reality.
I'm always surprised by how little originality seems to come out of major studios. This whole idea is not just beating a dead horse, it's going back in time, shooting the horse, and then starting to beat it. The whole idea of the original was to present a more hopeful version of the future. Which is what the Trek fans liked. Now, "originality" and "reinvention" seems to entail "let's blow the whole thing up, and make it "gritty". Yeah...that'll work."
Cripes, if they want fresh looks at the Trek universe, they ought to just do a quick web search. There's a lot of amateur Trek projects out there - Star Trek New Voyages, Star Trek Hidden Frontier, Star Trek Intrepid, and so on. They're not always "professional grade" in acting or writing, but they're generally a lot more original and fun than what I see coming out of Paramount!
Is it just me, or does it seem like every time there are real issues that need addressing, but require a lot of effort and a change in government policy, said government comes up with some diversionary issue?
"We need to reevaluate our Iraq policy." "Right, here's a measure we need to fight child pornography!" "We've got an immigration issue." "BTW, did we mention this epidemic of child porn?" "We have to look at healthcare costs" "Look! Kid porn! Child molesters!" It's a quick hot-button issue that allows them to spend immense amounts of time pontificating, while diverting public attention from any lack of work on real issues.
That's not even asking the question of "Why didn't the last 10 laws you passed on this subject work, or why didn't you enforce them?" Which is the question I'm asking of them. Until they have a good answer, I letting them know that I expect them to stop trying to divert me, and get to work on real issues.
Therefore, if you're the type of engineer that is GOOD AT WHAT HE DOES, and gets the job done right the first time, YOU WILL NOT BE OUTSOURCED.
You're looking at it only from an engineering perspective, and you may be right in that perspective. However "IT Outsourcing" does not just refer to engineering or software development. It also covers services and support. A much wider range than what you're pointing to.
I didn't make my original statement without consideration. Several years ago I spent some time as part of a consulting team doing outsourcing evaluations in one services field. Yes, I'm being generic. At the time India was attempting to get into that field, but realistically, they were a joke. The quality of work they were producing was so bad, it was ridiculous. The only thing recommending them at all was that they were doing it for 25% of the cost. There were a number of other outsourcing companies providing this service, with quality ranging from "good" to "oh god no!" The big selling point was always price. There were a lot of organizations looking to cut costs, and this was one of the prime targets.
What we quickly learned was that what these organizations were looking for from us was not an honest evaluation of whether outsourcing this was good for the organization, but a rubber stamp approval of their decision to outsource. One of the worst cases was an organization we did, where the department we evaluated was in the top 1% of the field. Our recommendation was "under no circumstances should you outsource. You have one of the best departments in the country, you'll never find anyone who will give you the quality and performance that you already have." Two weeks after our presentation, they announced their new outsourcing contract, and fired the entire department. The only solace I take from that was that the contract turned into an expensive nightmare for them.
That's why I took exception to the statement that if you're good, you won't be outsourced. Yes, sometimes outsourcing is a good idea. But I've also seen too many cases where it was a bad idea to begin with, but because "it saves money" (even when it doesn't), it still gets done. Competence is no security, sad to say.
Finally someone pointing out what I've always considered obvious. You don't need the latest and greatest to enjoy gaming.
Think about it. By the time you've acquired the latest game platform (PS3,Wii, X-Box360), the accessories, and bought the games, you've invested almost $1000. Are you really enjoying those games so much more than the old ones? Is the gaming experience so much better? Yeah, the graphics are cooler, but after that?
I can remember spending many hours working my way through "Crystal Caves." No graphics, just text. I had a lot of fun. I still go back on occasion to Doom 1. Yes, the new FPS's have much better graphics, but for sheer fun of playing, Doom still rocks!
I get a little tired of the hardware treadmill. Yeah, thanks for letting me know that I need to spend another 500 dollars to be able to play this new game, since the system I bought last year (or the video card, motherboard, processor, RAM) won't run it. Oh, and the year after that, we need you to spend yet another $500 because the new game needs it! No thanks, I think I'll use the money for something else, and enjoy the games that will run on what I've got. They're just as much fun.
Just because MySql no longer supports the flavor of the month distro of Linux, you all throw up your hands crying 'I never liked you anyway'.
In other news: Oracle announces they'll only support Oracle on Oracle's Linux, Red Hat is selling support for Red Hat Linux, and SuSe announces that it's selling support for SuSe Linux. Canonical announces support for Ubuntu, but not CentOS. Slashdot readers erupt in fury.
This is a business decision. I would bet that they looked at who was actually purchasing support contracts, and what they were running MySQL on. If 95% of your support contracts are running either one of two distros, then that's where you focus. It's not a slap at Debian as a distro, it's a decision reached because most people running Debian/MySQL weren't bothering with support contracts.
Look, if you are GOOD AT WHAT YOU DO, YOU WILL NOT BE OUTSOURCED.
My, aren't you naive! No need to shout, because life will soon smack you upside the head. A little reality check - Competence does not equal immunity. You can be the among the best, even the best in the industry, or the world at what you do, and some bean counter will outsource you in a heartbeat if they think they can get it done cheaper elsewhere.
Consider that almost half (47%)of the IT outsourcing contracts are cancelled due to non-performance. The sad truth is that the people who make the decisions to outsource are several layers removed from the people who actually perform the work, or work with the customers. Which frequently means that cost trumps quality or competence. The person making the decision doesn't know (or even care) that the people that are being outsourced are good or the best. All that manager knows is that they cost too much.
I would have absolutely NO IDEA how to even begin writing it.
The first step is to have the idea. Few, if any, projects ever started off with someone learning a language and going "Hmmm, think I'll write a web browser using this." Instead, you start with "I'd like to get a computer to do (fill in the blank)."
Once you've had the idea, everything else follows. Detail what you need to do to accomplish it, what tools you need to get there. If someone else has done it, check what they did. Using your console simulators as an example: The idea was "I'd like to play my console game on my PC." That's the starting point. Then you have to say "what do I need to do that?" You need the assembly for the console processor. You need to translate it into the processor on your PC. You need to (and so on). Each step is a building block, but it starts with the idea.
From my experince Ubuntu handles all of the above flawlesslly on just about any computer.
No, I didn't make any of that up, and the network card issue was a little known distro called "Ubuntu" (edgy). It turned out that the ndiswrapper needed to be updated, and a port scan added to the config. I had zero problems with this card in Fedora, Puppy, and DSL.
That's just one example. Right now on another board, a couple of us are walking (and learning some things ourselves) others through the process of getting their Ubuntu to use media links, play music, and so on. Yes, it can be done, and it works. But the common refrain I'm seeing is "gee, this was so simple to do in Windows!" Until I don't see that from someone starting off in a Linux distro, I won't be the one saying "Oh, Linux is easy, no problems to install and get up and running, does everything Windows does and better." I'd like to, though.
I don't care what resources Redmond has. They simply cannot compete with a bunch of determined individuals. No one can. It's just a matter of time.
CP/M. DR-DOS. Amiga. BeOS. Ring any bells? No? A small selection of the OS's that were from groups of determined individuals and companies that were supposed to be major competition for an MS operating system. Somehow, Microsoft outcompeted them. Crushed, rended, destroyed. Remnant development and fond memories are pretty much what's left. What you just said constitutes wishful thinking, but based on past experience, that's all it is,
I'd love it if Linux ever got its act together for a home-user, regular desktop with the ease of set up and use that, for the most part, MS has. Yes, every time they release a new OS, there's the round of stories about the security holes, the lack of drivers, etc. Yes, they're true, but in general they're solved pretty quickly. I have yet to have a Linux distro that hasn't given me some headache above and beyond that. It's never the same headache, either. Try this distro - why doesn't my mouse work? Try this other one - the mouse works, but why are my full graphics gone? Try another one - OK, the mouse and graphics work, but why can't it see the network card that the other two did? These were three different distros in the same generation. I was able to figure it out, and get them working, but it was a pain in the butt. Now put yourself in a home user's place, when you're trying Linux out for the first time. What about when you have have to apply patches, or install new software? You running Debian or Fedora? "Huh? I got Linux, not whatever you said."
I like Linux a lot. I've seen drastic improvements over the past decade in ease of installation, hardware support, and applications. I no longer have to know (most of the time) the frequency of my monitor for example. I can actually use a USB port. I use it for a solid majority of my computing. That said, I also recognize what MS does well, and what Linux needs to improve on. Hopefully it will, but it isn't there yet. The other things that needs to happen are to a) break the "MS Tax" on computers (unlikely, but hope springs eternal); and b) get behind the LSB, which has been talked about seemingly forever, so that some things "just work" on any distro!
Slashdot Mirror
Part of the responsibility of the highest office in the land is to make the tough calls, and he totally failed it on that one.
Considering that every one of his advisors recommended against the pardon, and he still did it, I'd say that was a tough call.
The other thing that all the people that froth at the mouth about this (still) forget is that an article of impeachment |=criminal charges. In fact, Nixon hadn't been indicted in the legal system, when the pardon was issued. Now, whether he would have been, and whether he would have convicted is something that can be argued (and probably will be) for a long time.
Ubuntu is a fairly good Linux distribution, with a pretty good set up. The Firefox update issue is probably not a fair consideration, since it's not actually Canonical, it's a function of Debian's issues with Mozilla.
The problem I have with Ubuntu's push is that it isn't really being pushed as a desktop for business so much as it is a desktop for the average user, to replace Windows or Mac. Unfortunately, it isn't ready for that, and it may actually be hurting itself because of it. If you're saying to people "Just download the CD's, and install it, it'll work with no problems.", you're asking for trouble. The people that are willing to give it a try are not expecting a Windows/Mac clone, but they do have certain expectations! Principally, that they're not going to spend the next three months learning how to debug, compile, edit configurations, and spend hours searching through various wikis, FAQ's, and web sites to actually use their computer for something.
These are the "first adopters", and the more unpleasant their experience, the harder is to get Linux out of the server/geek realm and into the home. It's been my experience that server OS's tend to make mediocre desktop OS's. That's been true whether it's Linux or Windows or (fill in the blank). The things you need to do on a server are different from what you need on most desktops. There's also a difference in needs between a business desktop and a home desktop. I think Linux is (mostly) ready to be a serious contender on the business desktop. Unfortunately, it isn't ready to be one on the home desktop. I think it could be one, but the community needs to listen and to look at what the average user actually is running into.
Here's a quote I found about Linux on the desktop on one of the other boards I frequent, that really helps summarize what needs to happen: "Come on nerds, would it really be such a terrible thing to spend $180 for a Linux will full hardware drivers and software codecs plus telephone support or even to pay $50 for a CD that gives you everything in the way of proprietary drivers and codecs ready to go for all your hardware and multimedia as opposed to spending hours and hours and hours downloading just bits and pieces of the solutions from all over the place and fighting to get them working? It's not like people who really want to couldn't still do that, but a simple, truly easy, less expensive alternative to the $400 Vista for the average Joe is what it is going to take to get the average Joe to come over from the dark side--and no one is ever going to have a prayer of winning the fight for open standards as long as all those ordinary Joe's are still living on the dark side."
That was a makeover of the original Colossal Cave (Adventure/Advent) text game. One of the more influential games, and the first adventure game, it had some of its features like "you are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike" copied into other games. I remember spending hours trying to work through it on a VAX 11/780. There were several ports done, and I played one a few years back, and it was still addictive. A great piece of gaming history, and something everyone should try - it's still fun, and shows that you don't always need enormous graphics and processors to make a great game.
The real solution to make Linux more mainstream is to make users more computer litterate.
Leaving aside the spelling miscue :-), you're not asking for computer literacy, you're asking for Linux literacy. There's been a god-awful amount of $$ pumped into the educational system over the past 15 years to develop "computer literacy." You can't go into any school system without seeing computers these days, and quite a large percentage of people have computers in their home. Are they computer literate? In terms of being able to use the computer, yes. Most people can figure out how to start their computer, hook it to the Internet, browse the web, check their e-mail, use a word processor, print documents, and even download and install programs these days. Unfortunately, they're doing this in Windows and MacOS X
The problem is that "computer literacy" is a moving target, frequently defined as "I know this, so everyone else should know it." I know how to build a computer from component parts. If you don't then you're computer illiterate. You know how to build a Beowulf cluster, I don't. I'm computer illiterate. What Stallman pointed out is that there's differences in computer literacy, and what we should expect from your average, moderately literate user. Compared with what existed back in the early '80's, most people today are computer literate.
What is being said is that while we can slam MS and Apple all we want, we also have to, if we want the desktop, look at what they do right. If I download an open source media player in Windows and install it, after I've done some check marks on choices during the installation, it's configured. I don't have to tell Firefox, Opera, Thunderbird, or whatever to use it as a default. Compare that with even the easier Linux distros, where you may have to edit several config files, or download and install another set of packages to enable it, and so on. Yes, I can do that, but just because I can, it doesn't mean I like it, or that I'd expect everyone else to be able to do it. If Linux can't move on things like that, then it is always going to be a server OS, and everyone should just STFU about using it on a desktop computer.
This ignores the population that will run silly "cupholder" executables and trojan filled "free screensavers," at every opportunity whether in Linux, Unix, or Windows, but then real stupidity trumps artificial intelligence every time.
Which was my point. I cringe every time that someone says "I can't get a virus because I'm running Linux!" Linux makes it more difficult than Windows by several orders of magnitude, but it doesn't mean that it's impossible. In case you're wondering, I have seen people who should have known better running as root on their computers. Their reasoning was related to your last sentence - it was "easier to run as root for what I'm doing." (sob) (head pounding) Running a given operating system does not incur automatic protection in the absence of proper procedure.
However, they don't spread a lot (because if someone uses linux, he has enough knowledge not to open an attachment/install an unknown file.)
Well, one *hopes* they have that! That practice has been a mainstay since the first viruses cropped up. However, believing that you're safe because you're running Linux, without following good practices is pretty dumb too. The first time someone's running as root and downloads an untrustworthy file...
Yes, it's harder to get viruses in Linux, and the ones that are out there tend not to be as able to spread as the Windows ones. That doesn't mean that you get to forget standard security practices.
ts a shame that those running /. give you extra karma for ignorant totally off the wall remarks that you make.
Everyone else.. feast your eyes..
It's pretty clear that you're equating "eye candy" with "functionality". You also don't seem to grasp that in the context I used it, desktop refers to the desktop computer. In general, operating systems originally meant for servers do not necessarily make good general-purpose desktop computer operating systems. Just because they can be used doesn't mean they're great at it - they tend to be mediocre at best.
Actually, the majority of Linux users and contributors are pretty focused on Linux on the server, and are not all that interested in it on the desktop. Of the 20 or so regular Linux contributors in my office right now, only two I know of are running it on the desktop.
That really points up (besides your other excellent points) one of the barriers to Linux as a desktop OS, even in a business environment. There are applications for Linux that are state of the art, best of breed for what they do - but they tend to be directly related to a server task or management. Other applications range from very good to lousy. Some don't exist at all on Linux. I recently worked with one group investigating the opportunity to move to a Linux desktop. There were 5 applications that were mandatory. For two applications, Linux was either the best choice, or an equal choice with any other OS. These just happened to be server related functions. A third application was promising, except for it being in beta and with limited hardware support. The forth application was bloated, inefficient, and a nightmare to customise. The fifth didn't exist on Linux - not as a port, not as an OSS project, nothing on the horizon. As much as they wanted to move to Linux, it simply wasn't feasible.
If I have criticisms of OSS, it's related to that. A shiny, "cool" project that relates to Linux as a server will attract a ton of developers, while some dull, routine desktop function that a clerical person needs will attract no one. The result is that Linux is now an outstanding server OS, but a mediocre desktop.
In the article, he a section on the potential hazard of Vista disabling video resolution in medical imaging applications. Leaving aside any issues of playing CD's in a work computer, I can see one outcome of this. The first time a blown diagnosis can be blamed on this, the malpractice lawyers will be heading after Microsoft. It's something they've got to be salivating over: The ultimate deep pockets! (cue theme from Jaws)
kept reading from momentum, but they got more and more full of turgid prose, jingoism, silly factual errors,and Tom Ryan
You mean things like the main character's name was Jack Ryan?
The "military" does not employ scientist to just muck around in labs and come up with something. There are notible exceptions. During WWII, many counrties did just that, and we got cyanoacrylate.
Umm.. actually, it does. Up until Bill Gates decided to throw a ton of money at malaria research, the US military was pretty much the only game in town. If you look at much of the tropical medicine research done in this country, you'll quickly find that it's being done or funded by the military. It doesn't get much news coverage, because most of these are diseases that people in developed countries never hear of.
Here's an example of something I got a kick out of. Recently in the news there was coverage of a technology that NYC is using to monitor the water quality of its reservoirs, and to detect any potential attack by terrorists. They use fish (bluegills) in a chamber, monitored by computers. I happen to know exactly how that works, and how it came to be developed. A scientist employed by the Army had an idea about how to use fish to monitor ground water contamination at military bases, and "mucked about" to come up with it and get it working. How do I know? I was there.
Now, your idea that the military doesn't innovate, it invests, isn't quite correct. But the same holds true of the private sector.
People have huge quantities of documents already in Word format. If there's never any reliable way of translating them into an open format, then those people will never switch to an open format.
Exactly! Like it or not, Office is the 800 pound gorilla, at the moment. It might help people here to remember that at one time, WordPerfect was the 800 pound gorilla. One of the standard features in Word 6 was to not only read and save into the WP format, but you could also enable it to use the WP command set. Microsoft didn't do this out of the goodness of its heart (insert laughter and obligatory sarcasm here), but because if it wanted Word to be adopted, it had to be able to read the format of the dominant word processing package.
On the other hand, demanding "perfect translation" is a bit of a stretch too, since it's hard to get that between Word versions. All you need is someone still using Word '97 when you send them something to find that out.
Is the FSF seriously backing a "distro" that's just Ubuntu with the logos and useful software taken out and calling it gNewSense (which sounds a /lot/ like gNuisance)?
Yes, unfortunately, yes. To quote: take all the binary blobs out ..., which I read as "removing all the drivers everyone else has been begging the hardware manufacturers to provide for Linux," along with any software that might have been released to run under Linux, but isn't "free" or (gasp) open source!
"Microsoft is evil! Vista is the spawn of the devil, it's awful, terrible and will rob you of your freedom! Oh, please, please use this crippled Linux distribution instead!" This whole campaign looks almost like Microsoft designed it for them. I'm sure there's a lot of snickering going on in Redmond.
The newspaper article is a not quite accurate either, although it has less hyperbole than the parent. What the study actually says is that it appears that the sensory nervous system is playing a role in the development and progression of diabetes. That is the "blockbuster", since it was thought to be an autoimmune disease.
If verified, it provides yet another avenue of investigation into diabetes control and possibly cure, but this is a first study. A lot of work needs to be done to go between this and a standard treatment.
Important? Yes. Break out the champagne and declare diabetes is cured? No.
are they capable of saying "I don't know, I need help here."
If they do answer this correctly, it also helps to ask some follow-up questions about where or how they would go about getting that help. I wouldn't expect most techs these days to know how to make a Centronics to RS232 printer cable from the components. There hasn't been a need to do that in a long time. But I would be able to explain how I would start to find information on how to do it - including finding out what a Centronics plug was.
Video Cards work out of the box for the purposes of using the card for non - 3D accelerated game purposes, unless you're stuck on basing your computer use on it being a game console.
And you just pinged someone on anecdotal versus empirical? It depends on the video card, and the particular distro. Even the more popular ones have been known to approximate the video, while not being exact. Which is why I can do a help search on, say Ubuntu, and find help tips on editing xorg.conf. Which is different from "out of the box."
On one of the discussion boards I frequent, we're spending a lot of time walking new Ubuntu users through something that is a piece of cake in Windows and Mac OS. Viewing and playing media files in a browser. I'm not talking about some proprietary format, I'm talking about MPEG, WAV, and midi files. Doable? Yes. "Out of the box install"? No.
I bring these up not to slam Linux so much as to point out that rabid fanboi behavior is counterproductive as well. Pointing out that various distro's have problems on install, and most definitely are not always "quick, easy, with no issues" should be incentive for improvement in those areas. Screaming that "you bought the wrong equipment!" or "You're a MS apologist!" or questioning the competence of the person just hurts the chances of acceptance of Linux on the desktop, and doesn't solve the problem.
I'm an OS agnostic. I've been around for a long time, and I've been through a lot of OS's. I had to be dragged kicking and screaming away from CLI to GUI, but I got over it. Every OS I've ever used has had issues. They've all had their good points too. There are some areas where Linux is my preferred OS. It does everything I need it to do in those areas, it does them better than anything else. There are other areas where Windows is my preferred OS. It does everything I need it to do in that area, and it does them better than anything else. In some areas, Mac OS is my preferred OS.
There's a reason why I have a preferred OS for various areas. Sometimes, the applications don't exist in one OS but do in the other. Sometimes the applications are clumsy, with limited capabilties or poor implementation compared to the others. Saying I can't use one OS in that area because of those factors doesn't make me an apologist for the other OS's, or that I'm against the OS. It's a statement of reality.
I'm always surprised by how little originality seems to come out of major studios. This whole idea is not just beating a dead horse, it's going back in time, shooting the horse, and then starting to beat it. The whole idea of the original was to present a more hopeful version of the future. Which is what the Trek fans liked. Now, "originality" and "reinvention" seems to entail "let's blow the whole thing up, and make it "gritty". Yeah...that'll work."
Cripes, if they want fresh looks at the Trek universe, they ought to just do a quick web search. There's a lot of amateur Trek projects out there - Star Trek New Voyages, Star Trek Hidden Frontier, Star Trek Intrepid, and so on. They're not always "professional grade" in acting or writing, but they're generally a lot more original and fun than what I see coming out of Paramount!
Is it just me, or does it seem like every time there are real issues that need addressing, but require a lot of effort and a change in government policy, said government comes up with some diversionary issue?
"We need to reevaluate our Iraq policy." "Right, here's a measure we need to fight child pornography!" "We've got an immigration issue." "BTW, did we mention this epidemic of child porn?" "We have to look at healthcare costs" "Look! Kid porn! Child molesters!" It's a quick hot-button issue that allows them to spend immense amounts of time pontificating, while diverting public attention from any lack of work on real issues.
That's not even asking the question of "Why didn't the last 10 laws you passed on this subject work, or why didn't you enforce them?" Which is the question I'm asking of them. Until they have a good answer, I letting them know that I expect them to stop trying to divert me, and get to work on real issues.
Therefore, if you're the type of engineer that is GOOD AT WHAT HE DOES, and gets the job done right the first time, YOU WILL NOT BE OUTSOURCED.
You're looking at it only from an engineering perspective, and you may be right in that perspective. However "IT Outsourcing" does not just refer to engineering or software development. It also covers services and support. A much wider range than what you're pointing to.
I didn't make my original statement without consideration. Several years ago I spent some time as part of a consulting team doing outsourcing evaluations in one services field. Yes, I'm being generic. At the time India was attempting to get into that field, but realistically, they were a joke. The quality of work they were producing was so bad, it was ridiculous. The only thing recommending them at all was that they were doing it for 25% of the cost. There were a number of other outsourcing companies providing this service, with quality ranging from "good" to "oh god no!" The big selling point was always price. There were a lot of organizations looking to cut costs, and this was one of the prime targets.
What we quickly learned was that what these organizations were looking for from us was not an honest evaluation of whether outsourcing this was good for the organization, but a rubber stamp approval of their decision to outsource. One of the worst cases was an organization we did, where the department we evaluated was in the top 1% of the field. Our recommendation was "under no circumstances should you outsource. You have one of the best departments in the country, you'll never find anyone who will give you the quality and performance that you already have." Two weeks after our presentation, they announced their new outsourcing contract, and fired the entire department. The only solace I take from that was that the contract turned into an expensive nightmare for them.
That's why I took exception to the statement that if you're good, you won't be outsourced. Yes, sometimes outsourcing is a good idea. But I've also seen too many cases where it was a bad idea to begin with, but because "it saves money" (even when it doesn't), it still gets done. Competence is no security, sad to say.
Finally someone pointing out what I've always considered obvious. You don't need the latest and greatest to enjoy gaming.
Think about it. By the time you've acquired the latest game platform (PS3,Wii, X-Box360), the accessories, and bought the games, you've invested almost $1000. Are you really enjoying those games so much more than the old ones? Is the gaming experience so much better? Yeah, the graphics are cooler, but after that?
I can remember spending many hours working my way through "Crystal Caves." No graphics, just text. I had a lot of fun. I still go back on occasion to Doom 1. Yes, the new FPS's have much better graphics, but for sheer fun of playing, Doom still rocks!
I get a little tired of the hardware treadmill. Yeah, thanks for letting me know that I need to spend another 500 dollars to be able to play this new game, since the system I bought last year (or the video card, motherboard, processor, RAM) won't run it. Oh, and the year after that, we need you to spend yet another $500 because the new game needs it! No thanks, I think I'll use the money for something else, and enjoy the games that will run on what I've got. They're just as much fun.
Just because MySql no longer supports the flavor of the month distro of Linux, you all throw up your hands crying 'I never liked you anyway'.
In other news: Oracle announces they'll only support Oracle on Oracle's Linux, Red Hat is selling support for Red Hat Linux, and SuSe announces that it's selling support for SuSe Linux. Canonical announces support for Ubuntu, but not CentOS. Slashdot readers erupt in fury.
This is a business decision. I would bet that they looked at who was actually purchasing support contracts, and what they were running MySQL on. If 95% of your support contracts are running either one of two distros, then that's where you focus. It's not a slap at Debian as a distro, it's a decision reached because most people running Debian/MySQL weren't bothering with support contracts.
Look, if you are GOOD AT WHAT YOU DO, YOU WILL NOT BE OUTSOURCED.
My, aren't you naive! No need to shout, because life will soon smack you upside the head. A little reality check - Competence does not equal immunity. You can be the among the best, even the best in the industry, or the world at what you do, and some bean counter will outsource you in a heartbeat if they think they can get it done cheaper elsewhere.
Consider that almost half (47%)of the IT outsourcing contracts are cancelled due to non-performance. The sad truth is that the people who make the decisions to outsource are several layers removed from the people who actually perform the work, or work with the customers. Which frequently means that cost trumps quality or competence. The person making the decision doesn't know (or even care) that the people that are being outsourced are good or the best. All that manager knows is that they cost too much.
I would have absolutely NO IDEA how to even begin writing it.
The first step is to have the idea. Few, if any, projects ever started off with someone learning a language and going "Hmmm, think I'll write a web browser using this." Instead, you start with "I'd like to get a computer to do (fill in the blank)."
Once you've had the idea, everything else follows. Detail what you need to do to accomplish it, what tools you need to get there. If someone else has done it, check what they did. Using your console simulators as an example: The idea was "I'd like to play my console game on my PC." That's the starting point. Then you have to say "what do I need to do that?" You need the assembly for the console processor. You need to translate it into the processor on your PC. You need to (and so on). Each step is a building block, but it starts with the idea.
From my experince Ubuntu handles all of the above flawlesslly on just about any computer.
No, I didn't make any of that up, and the network card issue was a little known distro called "Ubuntu" (edgy). It turned out that the ndiswrapper needed to be updated, and a port scan added to the config. I had zero problems with this card in Fedora, Puppy, and DSL.
That's just one example. Right now on another board, a couple of us are walking (and learning some things ourselves) others through the process of getting their Ubuntu to use media links, play music, and so on. Yes, it can be done, and it works. But the common refrain I'm seeing is "gee, this was so simple to do in Windows!" Until I don't see that from someone starting off in a Linux distro, I won't be the one saying "Oh, Linux is easy, no problems to install and get up and running, does everything Windows does and better." I'd like to, though.
I don't care what resources Redmond has. They simply cannot compete with a bunch of determined individuals. No one can. It's just a matter of time.
CP/M. DR-DOS. Amiga. BeOS. Ring any bells? No? A small selection of the OS's that were from groups of determined individuals and companies that were supposed to be major competition for an MS operating system. Somehow, Microsoft outcompeted them. Crushed, rended, destroyed. Remnant development and fond memories are pretty much what's left. What you just said constitutes wishful thinking, but based on past experience, that's all it is,
I'd love it if Linux ever got its act together for a home-user, regular desktop with the ease of set up and use that, for the most part, MS has. Yes, every time they release a new OS, there's the round of stories about the security holes, the lack of drivers, etc. Yes, they're true, but in general they're solved pretty quickly. I have yet to have a Linux distro that hasn't given me some headache above and beyond that. It's never the same headache, either. Try this distro - why doesn't my mouse work? Try this other one - the mouse works, but why are my full graphics gone? Try another one - OK, the mouse and graphics work, but why can't it see the network card that the other two did? These were three different distros in the same generation. I was able to figure it out, and get them working, but it was a pain in the butt. Now put yourself in a home user's place, when you're trying Linux out for the first time. What about when you have have to apply patches, or install new software? You running Debian or Fedora? "Huh? I got Linux, not whatever you said."
I like Linux a lot. I've seen drastic improvements over the past decade in ease of installation, hardware support, and applications. I no longer have to know (most of the time) the frequency of my monitor for example. I can actually use a USB port. I use it for a solid majority of my computing. That said, I also recognize what MS does well, and what Linux needs to improve on. Hopefully it will, but it isn't there yet. The other things that needs to happen are to a) break the "MS Tax" on computers (unlikely, but hope springs eternal); and b) get behind the LSB, which has been talked about seemingly forever, so that some things "just work" on any distro!