Good job, you've mostly described the process of setting up a new Windows system with all of the stuff that doesn't come setup "out of the box". Guess what? That's way too hard for most non-PC people. Wizards? Anything more complex than clicking the Next button a few times is going to fail the newbie test.
If you "don't even know" what I'm talking about with editing config files, you've clearly never dealt with a Unix system that needed manually fixing or tweaking to do something that GUI tools couldn't handle. I'm not going to try to explain the difference between our hypothetical system and a properly setup WinXP box, because your reaction shows that you clearly don't get it.
You've just described the paradox I couldn't put my finger on before: You want the programmer to be the user's "slave" and give them what they want, but the users don't even know what they want (or can't express it), and while doing what the users might want you also want the programmer ("the implementor") to choose how things should work for the user. Ouch.
So that suggests a lot of trial and error - uh, i mean iterative development - which doesn't work so well in a public market-driven world. Fine in house of course, but you better keep changing your test-subjects. Maybe it's worth it, but don't expect to make any money out of it 'cos you'll have a rep for producing crap by the time you get something that's good. It's like asking a blind man to lead you out of a caving expedition. You'll probably get there, but you'll have a lot of bups and bruises and it'll take a long way with lots of wrong turns.
The reason I suggested AI is because of the differences in users. You can't have a hard coded proceedure for how the system should act, because users will have different expectations and needs. I might want the system to show me certain config info at boot time, while others might get worried by the cryptic messages. Add setup options? OK, but new users probably don't even want some of those options available. Maybe the user wants lots of eyecandy options, but not network options? The system should figure it out - if it enabled a bunch of options but only the window manager got played with, hide the extraneous ones again.
But how does it know? Maybe I ask the help system how can I see system messages, and it gives me some choices. The downside is that I have to be aware of the possibility in the first place... So it then realises I might want more advanced options, and tweaks the UI tools to suit. perhaps it gives me more detailed firewall options, for example. This scenario makes you head hurt if you try to do it procedurally, because you're potentially adjusting every app's setup interface, and it varies by machine and by user. You could do something close with preset "levels" of config hiding, but that's too brittle IMO.
Anyway, yes, it's a nice idea and I expect we will get there (maybe with a smart interface on a near-future Linux distro?) but it's hard to do and as yet nobody has seen a need. Why? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing because MS owns the market and didn't need that to get there. I guess we'll see it when someone is hungry enough for a bigger slice of the pie.
However the programmer should be a slave to the user? What you just described is fricking hard to do. And doing without pissing off everyone aside from newbies and kiddiewinks is next to impossible. You're getting into an AI based system that can take pre-emptive actions and knows more than the user does.
How about when it does do something to keep your helpess user out of harm, like surfing the net and blocking "harmful" sites? Some users will cry censorship or restriction. What if it didn't block the "harmful" sites? Lawsuit from Mom who doesn't like to see other ladies boobies.
Or how about when the system thinks it knows best, and won't let you do something? You turn it off, but the computer knew you hit the kill switch because it couldn't do a clean shutdown, so it boots to a safe mode where you can't do shit and repairs the damage. You're back to square one. Do it manually by editing a config file? No, because the OS was protecting your data, so it encrypted the disk.
If you want an OS like this, you are both idealistic and misinformed. For something like this to happen, you'll need more than OS programming geeks to bend over for you, you'll need a bunch of AI geeks too. And a bunch of lawyers, because most of the interesting and innovative stuff is protected by patents.
The learning curve with ANY new operating system is large. Every tried to teach someone with no experience how to use Windows? It's hard. The Mac succeeds somewhat by hiding much of the complexity, and reducing the options available to the user. It make it hard to mess up, whereas Linux and Windows give the user the freedom to make mistakes (when working as root, anyway).
The Linux vendors can't follow the MS route, because they can't strong-arm hardware and software vendors to produce products for their OS. This is a good thing, and FWIW, trying to compete with AOL is kinda silly anyway. It's a sad day when a Linux distro proclaims it's got the dumbass market sewn up.:-D Seriously though, there's little incentive to sell the public an OS for the most part. The market is really in pre-installed systems - most punters don't mess with their systems once they're setup - and for that to happen vendors need to risk the wrath of MS by installing the competitor's software. It's a risky venture for them, so it won't happen until Linux is seen as foolproof, and has greater perceived application support - that's marketing folks, for Scribus, OpenOffice, The Gimp, and most of all, for Games.
However, what most of these folks (both people who want to preserve forests and those who want to keep mining regulated) are concerned about is the fouling of habitat.
It's also called "Shitting in your own nest". The main problem is that many folks don't see that their "nest" involves more than their own apartment or suburban subdivision.
Then why isn't it being used everywhere? Props to them if they've got something that good, but if I can't buy a motor then what's the point? Oh right, they're not interested in that, they want to sell "technology" not motors. Good for them, I'm sure they'll make their investors happy. He may not play the corporate America games, but at least this Japanese guy is actually putting his product on the shelf.
OK, 25GB isn't quite DVD size, but it's enough to put a movie on. So think disposable DVDs. Or non-return rental DVDs. Or "environmentally friendly" consumer DVDs if you prefer, that just happen to wear out so you can buy a new one every year or so...
Possibly, but that smells like FUD. It's more likely that the recording device is on an in-vehicle network (like CAN or Flexray) and passively receives information sent from other controllers and sensors. YMMV, IANAAEE (Automotive Electronics Engineer)
Floored accelerator while doing 157 km/h through an intersection in a 50 zone, and not braking before collecting another car. Maybe big brother got it right for once?
The jail throwing was for the MPAA, um, I mean, copyright infring *cough* STEALING! of the movie. Which was more like attempted copyright infringement, because they busted him before he finished the job.
Throwing someone in jail for attempting civil law infringement is fucked up. So yeh, it wouldn't surprise me if you get busted one day for breaking the no food rule. After all, imagine how much money you are STEALING! from them by not paying the rip-off prices at the candy bar.
To hell with the die size, check out the power requirements. There's two, TWO! power connectors for that thing. Damn, they've created a monster. I wonder how fast it can run GPGPU apps...
Accelerated 3D drivers for newer cards are available from your card vendor - presuming that's ATI or Nvidia. They're on their respsective vendor's websites, and the installation should be fairly painless if you follow the doco.
I reckon it's about time the distros and vendors got overthemselves and included these drivers by default. The users want them, and not having them "built in" is just a PITA for new users.
Your average home user doesn't have the patience to deal with that kind of thing, and until this hurdle is taken down they'll stick with Windows for sure.
I guess that's fair. I don't have the patience to deal with the average Windows user. I'm sick of whiny demanding ADD tools who want to run their bleeding edge hardware on Linux and not have to even think about what they're doing, let alone read any documentation - and they want it for free. Then they want me to sort them out when they fuck their system up, and have no clue what they even did to it.
Screw it, life is about choices, and if you want a Windows experience then pay for it. Don't use Linux just because it's free then bitch about how hard it is. Submit a frickin bug report or something. Linux works fine for Grandma and for Developers - it seems to be the midrange users and L337 gamerz who think they know shit that get upset when things aren't they way they're used to. Linux for everyone is a grand idea, but as a free software developer I ask, what's in it for me?
Patenting songs and artwork. If you need to draw an analogy for the layman, there's one they can identify with: I'm sorry, but if your art class wants to paint that bowl of fruit, you'll have to pay us 699 Euro for each painter's fruit bowl painting patent license.
I think the large companies are jumping at an opportunity to lock out small players and the random genious that upset the industry every so often. It doesn't greatly effect the large companies, because they have the resources to cross license between themselves. It makes reasonable defensive business sense, but is completely lacking any real foresight and growth vision. Sounds like something an MBA would dream up.
Actually, that's exactly the point. Ideally lots of geek sites going offline will inconvenience folks who need information and rely on them day-to-day. This being larger shops, companies in the IT area, and people who support the non-geeks. People take free software for granted, and as they say, you only realise what you had when it's gone.
Imagine for a moment if every site running Apache suddenly stopped. Every mail server running a free sendmail or postfix. Every ISP with Linux on their modem server or OpenBSD on their firewall. That's extremis, and against the nature of free software. It's also exactly where we are going with DRM commercial software from the big boys - don't pay your subscription? whoops, your database just stopped working! replace it with free one? nope, sorry, there's a patent on the transaction management that your software needs...
So while culling your webpage is pretty minimal, but it's just about the only leverage many OSS developers have. And although I agree somewhat with the poster saying it only affects us geeks, if big "mainstream" geek sites like Slashdot shutdown, it's got a sporting chance of being noticed by regular non-geek media.
Unfortunately, "Slashdot's value" is getting eyeballs onto ads, and if we know there's nothing to see for 2 weeks... well,that means there's no ad-money for Monkey Boy. You guys want to REALLY make a statement? Don't come to Slashdot for the next few weeks. Slashdot gets it's value from folks like you and I discussing amusing/interesting articles that other folks like you and I submit. If we ain't here - no value - protest enacted.
And the BBC... anyone remember that Linux thing they did while back. I don't really, but I remember it was so error ridden that it made Slashdot. The problem with the "trustworthy-ness" idea is two fold. 1) Respected reporters can plain get it wrong. 2) Respected news media companies get bought out. 3) People lie.
It's better than the current system, but it's really just a collectively identifying gossip mill. And while it'll be useful, the masses probably won't know about anyway.
It's not such a bad thing, IMO. Better to have someone off themselves in a painless and effective manner than to leave them damaged or disfigured. Suicide isn't a good option, but I've been though times that I'd probably say "fuck it" to now, and just pull the trigger rather than deal with that crap again. IMO, people should have the information available to them, so they can make that choice if they want to.
Besides, imagine how stink would you feel if you can't even get your suicide right - gotta give a guy a break sometime.
Can't NASA set the public's expectations realistic ally? Or perhaps the politicians are the ones who need to accept it? Or is it just the media that goes "w00t! new story!" and hypes it all into a NASA's biggest failure yet.
People will die pushing these kinds of boundaries, and that's part of the cost of exploration. Yet for some reason it's seen (by who I'm not sure...) as a failure. It's not a failure as long as we learn something from the process, and those that get involved know the risks they are taking.
Second quarter sales were just under 100 million USD last year...
In other news, Trend Micro predicts stocks to rise due to increased demandfor it's products and services as a direct result of increased virus activity.
I dunno about that, but I'm pretty sure that if word got around of anti-global warfare technology was being circulated on FreeNet, it would be outlawed very quickly. And once that happens, only outlaws will have FreeNet. Personally I don't see how such a ban could be written or enforced, but I'd fully expect it to happen.
We need something like AREXX on the old AmigaOS. We need to define an interface and for developers of major (and minor) applications to get onboard and implement it. If the Gnome, KDE, and Free Desktop camps went with something like this, I dare say it would take care of 80% of our GUI scripting woes.
Nuh-uh. I've got yer itch right here. When I write an app, I like it to be usable and aesthetically pleasing. Yes it's more work than just throwing the widgets at the window and leaving them where they fall, but that's cos my standards are higher than many. Big whoop if you can make your code run, so can a bazillion other geeks - but making a good UI on top of that is something that's relatively rare.
Slashdot Mirror
Good job, you've mostly described the process of setting up a new Windows system with all of the stuff that doesn't come setup "out of the box". Guess what? That's way too hard for most non-PC people. Wizards? Anything more complex than clicking the Next button a few times is going to fail the newbie test.
If you "don't even know" what I'm talking about with editing config files, you've clearly never dealt with a Unix system that needed manually fixing or tweaking to do something that GUI tools couldn't handle. I'm not going to try to explain the difference between our hypothetical system and a properly setup WinXP box, because your reaction shows that you clearly don't get it.
You've just described the paradox I couldn't put my finger on before: You want the programmer to be the user's "slave" and give them what they want, but the users don't even know what they want (or can't express it), and while doing what the users might want you also want the programmer ("the implementor") to choose how things should work for the user. Ouch.
So that suggests a lot of trial and error - uh, i mean iterative development - which doesn't work so well in a public market-driven world. Fine in house of course, but you better keep changing your test-subjects. Maybe it's worth it, but don't expect to make any money out of it 'cos you'll have a rep for producing crap by the time you get something that's good. It's like asking a blind man to lead you out of a caving expedition. You'll probably get there, but you'll have a lot of bups and bruises and it'll take a long way with lots of wrong turns.
The reason I suggested AI is because of the differences in users. You can't have a hard coded proceedure for how the system should act, because users will have different expectations and needs. I might want the system to show me certain config info at boot time, while others might get worried by the cryptic messages. Add setup options? OK, but new users probably don't even want some of those options available. Maybe the user wants lots of eyecandy options, but not network options? The system should figure it out - if it enabled a bunch of options but only the window manager got played with, hide the extraneous ones again.
But how does it know? Maybe I ask the help system how can I see system messages, and it gives me some choices. The downside is that I have to be aware of the possibility in the first place... So it then realises I might want more advanced options, and tweaks the UI tools to suit. perhaps it gives me more detailed firewall options, for example. This scenario makes you head hurt if you try to do it procedurally, because you're potentially adjusting every app's setup interface, and it varies by machine and by user. You could do something close with preset "levels" of config hiding, but that's too brittle IMO.
Anyway, yes, it's a nice idea and I expect we will get there (maybe with a smart interface on a near-future Linux distro?) but it's hard to do and as yet nobody has seen a need. Why? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing because MS owns the market and didn't need that to get there. I guess we'll see it when someone is hungry enough for a bigger slice of the pie.
I'm beginning to feel hungry...
However the programmer should be a slave to the user? What you just described is fricking hard to do. And doing without pissing off everyone aside from newbies and kiddiewinks is next to impossible. You're getting into an AI based system that can take pre-emptive actions and knows more than the user does.
How about when it does do something to keep your helpess user out of harm, like surfing the net and blocking "harmful" sites? Some users will cry censorship or restriction. What if it didn't block the "harmful" sites? Lawsuit from Mom who doesn't like to see other ladies boobies.
Or how about when the system thinks it knows best, and won't let you do something? You turn it off, but the computer knew you hit the kill switch because it couldn't do a clean shutdown, so it boots to a safe mode where you can't do shit and repairs the damage. You're back to square one. Do it manually by editing a config file? No, because the OS was protecting your data, so it encrypted the disk.
If you want an OS like this, you are both idealistic and misinformed. For something like this to happen, you'll need more than OS programming geeks to bend over for you, you'll need a bunch of AI geeks too. And a bunch of lawyers, because most of the interesting and innovative stuff is protected by patents.
The learning curve with ANY new operating system is large. Every tried to teach someone with no experience how to use Windows? It's hard. The Mac succeeds somewhat by hiding much of the complexity, and reducing the options available to the user. It make it hard to mess up, whereas Linux and Windows give the user the freedom to make mistakes (when working as root, anyway).
:-D Seriously though, there's little incentive to sell the public an OS for the most part. The market is really in pre-installed systems - most punters don't mess with their systems once they're setup - and for that to happen vendors need to risk the wrath of MS by installing the competitor's software. It's a risky venture for them, so it won't happen until Linux is seen as foolproof, and has greater perceived application support - that's marketing folks, for Scribus, OpenOffice, The Gimp, and most of all, for Games.
The Linux vendors can't follow the MS route, because they can't strong-arm hardware and software vendors to produce products for their OS. This is a good thing, and FWIW, trying to compete with AOL is kinda silly anyway. It's a sad day when a Linux distro proclaims it's got the dumbass market sewn up.
However, what most of these folks (both people who want to preserve forests and those who want to keep mining regulated) are concerned about is the fouling of habitat.
It's also called "Shitting in your own nest". The main problem is that many folks don't see that their "nest" involves more than their own apartment or suburban subdivision.
Then why isn't it being used everywhere? Props to them if they've got something that good, but if I can't buy a motor then what's the point? Oh right, they're not interested in that, they want to sell "technology" not motors. Good for them, I'm sure they'll make their investors happy. He may not play the corporate America games, but at least this Japanese guy is actually putting his product on the shelf.
OK, 25GB isn't quite DVD size, but it's enough to put a movie on. So think disposable DVDs. Or non-return rental DVDs. Or "environmentally friendly" consumer DVDs if you prefer, that just happen to wear out so you can buy a new one every year or so...
Possibly, but that smells like FUD. It's more likely that the recording device is on an in-vehicle network (like CAN or Flexray) and passively receives information sent from other controllers and sensors. YMMV, IANAAEE (Automotive Electronics Engineer)
Floored accelerator while doing 157 km/h through an intersection in a 50 zone, and not braking before collecting another car. Maybe big brother got it right for once?
The jail throwing was for the MPAA, um, I mean, copyright infring *cough* STEALING! of the movie. Which was more like attempted copyright infringement, because they busted him before he finished the job.
Throwing someone in jail for attempting civil law infringement is fucked up. So yeh, it wouldn't surprise me if you get busted one day for breaking the no food rule. After all, imagine how much money you are STEALING! from them by not paying the rip-off prices at the candy bar.
To hell with the die size, check out the power requirements. There's two, TWO! power connectors for that thing. Damn, they've created a monster. I wonder how fast it can run GPGPU apps...
Accelerated 3D drivers for newer cards are available from your card vendor - presuming that's ATI or Nvidia. They're on their respsective vendor's websites, and the installation should be fairly painless if you follow the doco.
I reckon it's about time the distros and vendors got overthemselves and included these drivers by default. The users want them, and not having them "built in" is just a PITA for new users.
"...one of those jurisdictions that requires all parties to a conversation to consent before the conversation can be intercepted or recorded."
Police: Can we tap your phone?
Drug dealer: No.
Punter: No.
Police: Uh, ok then. Have a nice day.
Yup. That'll work.
That's somewhat fitting (and disconcerting) coming from a Slashdotter with .mil address.
Your average home user doesn't have the patience to deal with that kind of thing, and until this hurdle is taken down they'll stick with Windows for sure.
I guess that's fair. I don't have the patience to deal with the average Windows user. I'm sick of whiny demanding ADD tools who want to run their bleeding edge hardware on Linux and not have to even think about what they're doing, let alone read any documentation - and they want it for free. Then they want me to sort them out when they fuck their system up, and have no clue what they even did to it.
Screw it, life is about choices, and if you want a Windows experience then pay for it. Don't use Linux just because it's free then bitch about how hard it is. Submit a frickin bug report or something. Linux works fine for Grandma and for Developers - it seems to be the midrange users and L337 gamerz who think they know shit that get upset when things aren't they way they're used to. Linux for everyone is a grand idea, but as a free software developer I ask, what's in it for me?
Patenting songs and artwork. If you need to draw an analogy for the layman, there's one they can identify with:
I'm sorry, but if your art class wants to paint that bowl of fruit, you'll have to pay us 699 Euro for each painter's fruit bowl painting patent license.
I think the large companies are jumping at an opportunity to lock out small players and the random genious that upset the industry every so often. It doesn't greatly effect the large companies, because they have the resources to cross license between themselves. It makes reasonable defensive business sense, but is completely lacking any real foresight and growth vision. Sounds like something an MBA would dream up.
Actually, that's exactly the point. Ideally lots of geek sites going offline will inconvenience folks who need information and rely on them day-to-day. This being larger shops, companies in the IT area, and people who support the non-geeks. People take free software for granted, and as they say, you only realise what you had when it's gone.
Imagine for a moment if every site running Apache suddenly stopped. Every mail server running a free sendmail or postfix. Every ISP with Linux on their modem server or OpenBSD on their firewall. That's extremis, and against the nature of free software. It's also exactly where we are going with DRM commercial software from the big boys - don't pay your subscription? whoops, your database just stopped working! replace it with free one? nope, sorry, there's a patent on the transaction management that your software needs...
So while culling your webpage is pretty minimal, but it's just about the only leverage many OSS developers have. And although I agree somewhat with the poster saying it only affects us geeks, if big "mainstream" geek sites like Slashdot shutdown, it's got a sporting chance of being noticed by regular non-geek media.
Unfortunately, "Slashdot's value" is getting eyeballs onto ads, and if we know there's nothing to see for 2 weeks... well,that means there's no ad-money for Monkey Boy. You guys want to REALLY make a statement? Don't come to Slashdot for the next few weeks. Slashdot gets it's value from folks like you and I discussing amusing/interesting articles that other folks like you and I submit. If we ain't here - no value - protest enacted.
See you in a week or so.
And the BBC... anyone remember that Linux thing they did while back. I don't really, but I remember it was so error ridden that it made Slashdot. The problem with the "trustworthy-ness" idea is two fold. 1) Respected reporters can plain get it wrong. 2) Respected news media companies get bought out. 3) People lie.
It's better than the current system, but it's really just a collectively identifying gossip mill. And while it'll be useful, the masses probably won't know about anyway.
It's not such a bad thing, IMO. Better to have someone off themselves in a painless and effective manner than to leave them damaged or disfigured. Suicide isn't a good option, but I've been though times that I'd probably say "fuck it" to now, and just pull the trigger rather than deal with that crap again. IMO, people should have the information available to them, so they can make that choice if they want to.
Besides, imagine how stink would you feel if you can't even get your suicide right - gotta give a guy a break sometime.
Can't NASA set the public's expectations realistic ally? Or perhaps the politicians are the ones who need to accept it? Or is it just the media that goes "w00t! new story!" and hypes it all into a NASA's biggest failure yet.
People will die pushing these kinds of boundaries, and that's part of the cost of exploration. Yet for some reason it's seen (by who I'm not sure...) as a failure. It's not a failure as long as we learn something from the process, and those that get involved know the risks they are taking.
Second quarter sales were just under 100 million USD last year...
In other news, Trend Micro predicts stocks to rise due to increased demandfor it's products and services as a direct result of increased virus activity.
Yawn.
I dunno about that, but I'm pretty sure that if word got around of anti-global warfare technology was being circulated on FreeNet, it would be outlawed very quickly. And once that happens, only outlaws will have FreeNet. Personally I don't see how such a ban could be written or enforced, but I'd fully expect it to happen.
We need something like AREXX on the old AmigaOS. We need to define an interface and for developers of major (and minor) applications to get onboard and implement it. If the Gnome, KDE, and Free Desktop camps went with something like this, I dare say it would take care of 80% of our GUI scripting woes.
Nuh-uh. I've got yer itch right here. When I write an app, I like it to be usable and aesthetically pleasing. Yes it's more work than just throwing the widgets at the window and leaving them where they fall, but that's cos my standards are higher than many. Big whoop if you can make your code run, so can a bazillion other geeks - but making a good UI on top of that is something that's relatively rare.
[Missle defense is just going to create another arms race as countries build weapons that can get past them.]
Because everyone knows the sword was invented after the shield.
[An open source missile defence would be its very nature be the easiest to fool, so I don't necessarily see the use.]
Just like everyone can hack OpenBSD because it's open source.
The only real problems with the plan are policitians and lawyers.