The cheapest option mindset does seem to be dominant at the moment but I think it's at the end of it's lifespan. How much does a Windows desktop cost compared to a Linux desktop for the lowly user? Linux might be $100 cheaper but it has NO obvious benefits, and once you turn the machine on it really stinks to use. In the long run Linux might be able to steal away the dumb users from Microsoft on its cost alone but if it never develops into a useful product it's not going to go much further than Walmart and generic corporate desktops. I'm not suggesting that it won't go further, but to get back to the original point, 2004 is not the year for Linux on the desktop. Obviously the way to take it to the desktop quicker is to have a good system built where people actively want to switch and the cost is just a bonus.
I'm not saying it doesn't offer anything or that no one is using it now, just that in the grand scheme of things, Linux is not a quality desktop product. Heck, Windows is completely horrible too and OS X has some major flaws, but they both have things pretty sorted out in terms of their direction. My point mostly is that Linux has to get a UI plan which doesn't just address "good enough" but actually tries to take the whole computing experience forward. I'm not talking about virtual desktops or transparency either. I mean a whole unified way of doing things that makes sense and is going to give Linux a certain character and usability that will attract both newbies for its simplicity and discerning users for their taste. Classic Mac OS did have this, so did BeOS. Despite their respective flaws, they were complete starting points with vision and intrinsic order. Linux needs a huge dose of this regardless of what the actual graphical appearance is like.
True, there has been massive progress over the last 7 years but the thing I think that has always been missing is the figurehead like Linus, but in terms of user interface. Certainly part of the appeal of OSS is that anyone can make their own UI but it's to the point where there has to be some real direction, probably from one person who has a vision and can inspire people. I've worked my whole life as a graphic designer and this is how I've experienced projects working successfully. There can be a team but there has to be a single leader.
Being a Mac user, I've learned to take these kind of prognostications with a grain of salt over the years. Linux has a good foundation and it's nearly free but that's no where near enough to win the hearts and minds of the average computer user. Obviously it has to do what they need, with the minimum amount of hassle and the maximum amount of pleasure. Linux has too many loose ends, too much variability, and a really substandard user interface at this point. It's going to have to be at least as polished as Windows and probably closer to OS X level before it really starts swaying people. I'm eager to use Linux and I check out all the distributions when they have notable releases, but nothing has shown me a reason to switch, not even for a bare bones e-mail/web machine.
I think pretty much all the comments people are making are in regards to the simple screen real estate that OS X requires. On a Cinema Display OS X "feels" just as "spatial" as OS 9 with all the benefits of the new features that people are defending. On an iBook with 1028 resolution OS X feels like a Japanese casket hotel room. The size of all the UI, including the dock just gets in the way more than OS 9 so it can't feel good spatially - there isn't enough space.
I think if you divided up the comments into those that like the new interface vs those who don't, it would be those with small screens and those with large ones.
Well, let me expand on my statement. We have a planet right here that sustains all the life we need as we know it. The problem is that for 2000 years, we've had the mindset that we must conquer and tame whatever is just out of our grasp. In the process we've ruined just about everything we've conquered and it's now to the point where the planet can no longer sustain all the life that used to be here. Since you read slashdot, you probably saw the Nature article saying that something between 15% and 37% of living species will be extinct due to global warming in the next 46 years! By the time we get to Mars there won't be much left on Earth. The answer obviously is to pay more attention to what's in our back yard and forget about the profit on Mars rocks and the chance for a new home two hundred years in the future. Next time you're going to throw out an insult, have the guts to post using your account name.
The Internet isn't going to lead to any long term business innovation. It's simply an accelerator of business. Even those businesses that we look at as successes today like Amazon and Dell or perhaps future successes in the realm of VoIP etc. are really just about eeking value out of goods.
The bottom line that we are facing is that there is no more value left in goods. We have already automated everything to the point where a large percentage improvement in profit is going to show diminishing returns in terms of actual dollars for companies. It's like making $2 profit on a $300 computer vs. making $1.50. In the long run the push to ever increase volumes amongst smaller increases in profit will simply reduce product value to zero (which is what we're seeing now on all consumer goods, so much so that we can't realistically afford to produce those domestically anymore).
Sadly, we live in the era of high volume, disposable products and we have the false impression that we "get another one" indefinitely. The Internet just underlines this false availability. Fundamentally, we're heading for a huge crash of product valuation and resource availability. Companies simply can't keep making no money selling worthless products. Eventually, we're just going to run out of raw materials to make so many disposable things.
If the Internet does anything in terms of new business models I hope it kills its own business model. We have to understand that there are no new markets to exploit, that the people we're profiting off of are not some faceless mass, they're ourselves.
I strongly second the Tom Bihn bags. I have the Eclipse for my PBG4 Ti and it is absolutely perfect. Most of the competitors seem to have lightweight stitching and straps yet they still feel bulky and heavy. The Eclipse has substantial workmanship yet feels very small and light. It looks great too.
Being a long time Mac user, I liked the features and responsiveness of Be, but overall the potential of the OS came from the fact that it had a comprehensive, predictable environment. Like Mac OS you could just tell that there were certain rules at work. The GUI was consistent. The programs all behaved according to an understood structure and it was easy to see that in a few years the relatively nasty command-line-esque parts were going to be relegated and the whole OS was going to be a GUI power tool. It was the leanest, trimmest thing out there and this is what pro designers etc. want with their tools. Even today with OS X, there just isn't the feeling of power or freedom to do things as quickly as you want. Windows and Linux are like sludge in comparison, not just for pure speed but in the endless UI clutter everywhere.
I think finishing what Be started is a great goal to have. In the least it will set the bar high for the commercial OSes and perhaps finally force Linux to get its act together on the desktop.
I'm not saying they're the same movie, or that SS doesn't have a theme, just that Kill Bill is the evolution of SS as an action film. I think if you watch the two, you'll see that the pacing is quite similar.
I think Kill Bill will probably go down as one of the greatest action/martial arts movies of all time. It has no plot other than "kill bill (and his henchwomen)" yet, manages to have deep characters and constant excitement. Most other recent action movies have just been computer animation exercises. They're more boring than watching someone play a video game for 2 hours. Kill Bill is this millennium's answer to Seven Samurai.
It's true, most 35mm photogs use Nikon or Canon but there is a dark horse in the form of Olympus. I find the OM-1 and successors to be simply the best used 35mms. They have great lenses and are some of the smallest cameras made. I've had Canons and Nikons but they just seem to have a bulk that I could never get over, thus I never carried them. 99% of taking photos is having the camera with you:-)
One of the best social hubs if you're into meeting engaging people is the local independent record store. Buy yourself a good stereo and go buy records at least once a week. The interaction is great and so will be the music. Breaking up long hours at home with great records helps immeasurably.
I agree with the idealism of your thesis - "if you exercise your own freedom effectively, war is not necessary," but this is an entirely subjective definition of war and freedom. One can exercise freedom while in a cage, but the cage remains. Again, one can argue that Windows is not a cage and that it is good, but in the case where someone strongly believes that the predominant OS is a cage, they can only exercise their freedom through warring against the popular opinion. People don't all choose the right thing, in fact they often choose the worst thing. Look at many of the "revered" revolutionary uprisings in the past. Many, if not the majority were by minorities that changed the entire populace and established new ideals that in cases last until today. And, most all of these uprisings required violence of some sort.
It's true, the iPod really is the best portable digital player. I've listened to all the portable CD players too and I think the iPod is better than all of them too, plus it's one of the few portables with enough power to drive a decent pair of earphones. It's not as good as my PowerBook G4 headphone jack and certainly not as good as the audio outs on even a basic CD player but what do you expect for next to no battery power and the size of a deck of cards.
I agree, the net is most useful for meta-knowledge. It helps me figure out what's important to know, which sources are important to seek, and which authors are important to listen to. The reason it can do this is because there's hundreds or thousands of other people who've already looked for the same information I have and have left a trail of discerning reviews for me to read.
We've only had this kind of wisdom in small sectors of higher education where you might happen upon a professor who already knew the answers to the big questions you were wondering about. They delivered direction in what to study, not just answers to simple things which is really the most valuable kind of information. Now because of the web, all this meta-info is pretty much ubiquitous. I still seek out the resources, but now I know which resources to choose and which are useless.
I hate the Segway. 99% of the time a bicycle or one of those Xootr push scooters outperforms it using less energy at a fraction of the cost. I don't even have to go into the grotesque image created when someone rides a Segway, a picture will do:
You obviously weren't using OS X. It's true, 9 had some bad memory/multitasking issues that made a poorly configured machine crash often, but X is Unix. I've NEVER had a system crash (only a couple kernel panics from weird peripherals). You can run all the big apps at the same time and it may slow down a bit, but everything will continue as expected.
I find it funny to even be having this debate. The level of education even amongst the cream of society is so low in the key areas that intellectuals are reduced to bickering over topics that were decided 100 years ago.
Even common sense says diversity is valuable, as is self-discipline and self-directed learning. If you put those 3 things together you get vitality and self-sufficient growth of the broadest definition.
If you look at those things as the keys to an advancing society, and you look at the reason they're being subverted, it's the same in each case - capitalist agenda. Capitalism fails in diversity (it requires monoculture). Capitalism fails when people are self-sufficient and disciplined (it requires need and desire). Capitalism fails when people are independent thinkers (it requires passivity and consumption).
It's only natural that schools want Windows. Windows is capitalism embodied in technology and since schools are really just creating passive, like-minded working drones now, Windows is going to "train" them even quicker. Apple absolutely doesn't have a future given the trend that we're in. They present something that allows individual success, transparent creative opportunity at a cost that is higher than the artificial alternative. Schools want nothing of the Apple utopia.
Slashdot Mirror
The cheapest option mindset does seem to be dominant at the moment but I think it's at the end of it's lifespan. How much does a Windows desktop cost compared to a Linux desktop for the lowly user? Linux might be $100 cheaper but it has NO obvious benefits, and once you turn the machine on it really stinks to use. In the long run Linux might be able to steal away the dumb users from Microsoft on its cost alone but if it never develops into a useful product it's not going to go much further than Walmart and generic corporate desktops. I'm not suggesting that it won't go further, but to get back to the original point, 2004 is not the year for Linux on the desktop. Obviously the way to take it to the desktop quicker is to have a good system built where people actively want to switch and the cost is just a bonus.
I'm not saying it doesn't offer anything or that no one is using it now, just that in the grand scheme of things, Linux is not a quality desktop product. Heck, Windows is completely horrible too and OS X has some major flaws, but they both have things pretty sorted out in terms of their direction. My point mostly is that Linux has to get a UI plan which doesn't just address "good enough" but actually tries to take the whole computing experience forward. I'm not talking about virtual desktops or transparency either. I mean a whole unified way of doing things that makes sense and is going to give Linux a certain character and usability that will attract both newbies for its simplicity and discerning users for their taste. Classic Mac OS did have this, so did BeOS. Despite their respective flaws, they were complete starting points with vision and intrinsic order. Linux needs a huge dose of this regardless of what the actual graphical appearance is like.
Just give me a Harrison Ford cameo and all will be well.
True, there has been massive progress over the last 7 years but the thing I think that has always been missing is the figurehead like Linus, but in terms of user interface. Certainly part of the appeal of OSS is that anyone can make their own UI but it's to the point where there has to be some real direction, probably from one person who has a vision and can inspire people. I've worked my whole life as a graphic designer and this is how I've experienced projects working successfully. There can be a team but there has to be a single leader.
Being a Mac user, I've learned to take these kind of prognostications with a grain of salt over the years. Linux has a good foundation and it's nearly free but that's no where near enough to win the hearts and minds of the average computer user. Obviously it has to do what they need, with the minimum amount of hassle and the maximum amount of pleasure. Linux has too many loose ends, too much variability, and a really substandard user interface at this point. It's going to have to be at least as polished as Windows and probably closer to OS X level before it really starts swaying people. I'm eager to use Linux and I check out all the distributions when they have notable releases, but nothing has shown me a reason to switch, not even for a bare bones e-mail/web machine.
I think pretty much all the comments people are making are in regards to the simple screen real estate that OS X requires. On a Cinema Display OS X "feels" just as "spatial" as OS 9 with all the benefits of the new features that people are defending. On an iBook with 1028 resolution OS X feels like a Japanese casket hotel room. The size of all the UI, including the dock just gets in the way more than OS 9 so it can't feel good spatially - there isn't enough space.
I think if you divided up the comments into those that like the new interface vs those who don't, it would be those with small screens and those with large ones.
This is a critical listening test I did for the various formats and bit rates.
Well, let me expand on my statement. We have a planet right here that sustains all the life we need as we know it. The problem is that for 2000 years, we've had the mindset that we must conquer and tame whatever is just out of our grasp. In the process we've ruined just about everything we've conquered and it's now to the point where the planet can no longer sustain all the life that used to be here. Since you read slashdot, you probably saw the Nature article saying that something between 15% and 37% of living species will be extinct due to global warming in the next 46 years! By the time we get to Mars there won't be much left on Earth. The answer obviously is to pay more attention to what's in our back yard and forget about the profit on Mars rocks and the chance for a new home two hundred years in the future. Next time you're going to throw out an insult, have the guts to post using your account name.
"Going to Mars and taming space is the only way forward for humanity as a whole"
It's thinking like this that's killing the planet.
The Internet isn't going to lead to any long term business innovation. It's simply an accelerator of business. Even those businesses that we look at as successes today like Amazon and Dell or perhaps future successes in the realm of VoIP etc. are really just about eeking value out of goods.
The bottom line that we are facing is that there is no more value left in goods. We have already automated everything to the point where a large percentage improvement in profit is going to show diminishing returns in terms of actual dollars for companies. It's like making $2 profit on a $300 computer vs. making $1.50. In the long run the push to ever increase volumes amongst smaller increases in profit will simply reduce product value to zero (which is what we're seeing now on all consumer goods, so much so that we can't realistically afford to produce those domestically anymore).
Sadly, we live in the era of high volume, disposable products and we have the false impression that we "get another one" indefinitely. The Internet just underlines this false availability. Fundamentally, we're heading for a huge crash of product valuation and resource availability. Companies simply can't keep making no money selling worthless products. Eventually, we're just going to run out of raw materials to make so many disposable things.
If the Internet does anything in terms of new business models I hope it kills its own business model. We have to understand that there are no new markets to exploit, that the people we're profiting off of are not some faceless mass, they're ourselves.
I strongly second the Tom Bihn bags. I have the Eclipse for my PBG4 Ti and it is absolutely perfect. Most of the competitors seem to have lightweight stitching and straps yet they still feel bulky and heavy. The Eclipse has substantial workmanship yet feels very small and light. It looks great too.
Being a long time Mac user, I liked the features and responsiveness of Be, but overall the potential of the OS came from the fact that it had a comprehensive, predictable environment. Like Mac OS you could just tell that there were certain rules at work. The GUI was consistent. The programs all behaved according to an understood structure and it was easy to see that in a few years the relatively nasty command-line-esque parts were going to be relegated and the whole OS was going to be a GUI power tool. It was the leanest, trimmest thing out there and this is what pro designers etc. want with their tools. Even today with OS X, there just isn't the feeling of power or freedom to do things as quickly as you want. Windows and Linux are like sludge in comparison, not just for pure speed but in the endless UI clutter everywhere. I think finishing what Be started is a great goal to have. In the least it will set the bar high for the commercial OSes and perhaps finally force Linux to get its act together on the desktop.
I'm not saying they're the same movie, or that SS doesn't have a theme, just that Kill Bill is the evolution of SS as an action film. I think if you watch the two, you'll see that the pacing is quite similar.
I think Kill Bill will probably go down as one of the greatest action/martial arts movies of all time. It has no plot other than "kill bill (and his henchwomen)" yet, manages to have deep characters and constant excitement. Most other recent action movies have just been computer animation exercises. They're more boring than watching someone play a video game for 2 hours. Kill Bill is this millennium's answer to Seven Samurai.
It's true, most 35mm photogs use Nikon or Canon but there is a dark horse in the form of Olympus. I find the OM-1 and successors to be simply the best used 35mms. They have great lenses and are some of the smallest cameras made. I've had Canons and Nikons but they just seem to have a bulk that I could never get over, thus I never carried them. 99% of taking photos is having the camera with you :-)
One of the best social hubs if you're into meeting engaging people is the local independent record store. Buy yourself a good stereo and go buy records at least once a week. The interaction is great and so will be the music. Breaking up long hours at home with great records helps immeasurably.
I agree with the idealism of your thesis - "if you exercise your own freedom effectively, war is not necessary," but this is an entirely subjective definition of war and freedom. One can exercise freedom while in a cage, but the cage remains. Again, one can argue that Windows is not a cage and that it is good, but in the case where someone strongly believes that the predominant OS is a cage, they can only exercise their freedom through warring against the popular opinion. People don't all choose the right thing, in fact they often choose the worst thing. Look at many of the "revered" revolutionary uprisings in the past. Many, if not the majority were by minorities that changed the entire populace and established new ideals that in cases last until today. And, most all of these uprisings required violence of some sort.
http://www.recordstorereview.com/misc/aacmp3.shtml
AAC vs. MP3 vs. OGG vs. AIF
It's true, the iPod really is the best portable digital player. I've listened to all the portable CD players too and I think the iPod is better than all of them too, plus it's one of the few portables with enough power to drive a decent pair of earphones. It's not as good as my PowerBook G4 headphone jack and certainly not as good as the audio outs on even a basic CD player but what do you expect for next to no battery power and the size of a deck of cards.
I agree, the net is most useful for meta-knowledge. It helps me figure out what's important to know, which sources are important to seek, and which authors are important to listen to. The reason it can do this is because there's hundreds or thousands of other people who've already looked for the same information I have and have left a trail of discerning reviews for me to read.
We've only had this kind of wisdom in small sectors of higher education where you might happen upon a professor who already knew the answers to the big questions you were wondering about. They delivered direction in what to study, not just answers to simple things which is really the most valuable kind of information. Now because of the web, all this meta-info is pretty much ubiquitous. I still seek out the resources, but now I know which resources to choose and which are useless.
Agreed, read my comparison of higher, real world bit rates here: AAC, MP3, OGG, LAME/A
I hate the Segway. 99% of the time a bicycle or one of those Xootr push scooters outperforms it using less energy at a fraction of the cost. I don't even have to go into the grotesque image created when someone rides a Segway, a picture will do:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2989000.stm
You obviously weren't using OS X. It's true, 9 had some bad memory/multitasking issues that made a poorly configured machine crash often, but X is Unix. I've NEVER had a system crash (only a couple kernel panics from weird peripherals). You can run all the big apps at the same time and it may slow down a bit, but everything will continue as expected.
Even the new fluorescents give me a headache. I'm a fan of Blade Runner but coming home to that bluish glow in real life makes me sick.
I find it funny to even be having this debate. The level of education even amongst the cream of society is so low in the key areas that intellectuals are reduced to bickering over topics that were decided 100 years ago. Even common sense says diversity is valuable, as is self-discipline and self-directed learning. If you put those 3 things together you get vitality and self-sufficient growth of the broadest definition. If you look at those things as the keys to an advancing society, and you look at the reason they're being subverted, it's the same in each case - capitalist agenda. Capitalism fails in diversity (it requires monoculture). Capitalism fails when people are self-sufficient and disciplined (it requires need and desire). Capitalism fails when people are independent thinkers (it requires passivity and consumption). It's only natural that schools want Windows. Windows is capitalism embodied in technology and since schools are really just creating passive, like-minded working drones now, Windows is going to "train" them even quicker. Apple absolutely doesn't have a future given the trend that we're in. They present something that allows individual success, transparent creative opportunity at a cost that is higher than the artificial alternative. Schools want nothing of the Apple utopia.