Then he should get rid of them as you say. Perhaps move them to sections where people with their technical skills are needed, instead of recruiting new people.
Back to the topic: there are more ways to measure productivity:
- System downtime.
- Number of break ins into the system.
- Number of "bugs" reported, concerning network related issues (latency between connections, and such) which can be tracked down as fault of this administrator's network.
I'm sure we could brainstorm a few more, but I'm here to give an "opinion", not perform as a consultant. If you prefer to measure your work the other way around to better match your company's coworkers, you could put it the other way around - for example, "system uptime" instead of "system downtime".
People who believe in astrology don't do so because of logic. They cling to the hope that the universe is not just a giant machine, that they are somehow made unique among humans by their keen intelligence, inside knowledge, and special placement in it.
I mean, once could always say that people who believe in computer science don't do so because of logic. They cling to the hope that the computing environment is not just a giant program, that their software is somehow made unique among other programs by their architecture, system integration, and nice UI features.
Judging by all the modded up comments, I guess I'm the only freak around here.
Astrology is as much belief to the average person as is computer science. In school, we are taught to get used to it, not actually knowing how it works or why it works. This is very clear when you start asking your teacher questions and she starts being unable to answer them in a clear, logical and sensible way.
I'm going to reason my explanation with this premise: the average person (in this case, this would mean you) is as aware of what astrology really is the same way the "average joe" or "joe sixpack" is aware of computer science. I'm sure many of you can recall stuff which many ordinary people would be astonished by, yet they are considered true and real: try explaining how a central processing unit works (I know this isn't purely into computer science, but some students actually have classes of how and why it works). The same goes for astrology.
Astrology is not witchcraft, or superstition. The same way there are several ways to practice astrology (heliocentric, geocentric, blah blah), there are also computer scientists which dedicate their time using C or Python or something else.
The results, of course, differ. So do the results in computer science, hence the claim that the language doesn't guarantee a good result, although it can help, it's all in the hands of the programmer.
So, if you think computer science is science, so is astrology. There may be debates about the "jupiter alignement with mars" true meaning, but you guys still discuss wether threads are better than asynchronous stuff. Why not simply sort it out? Exactly! Because both solve the same problem in different ways, and may be appliable depending on the situation.
Yes, there are charlatans who make money from people's emotional weaknesses. There are others who do serious work. This could be said of any kind of business.
I'm sorry to carry this with simplistic analogies, but after reading such an ignorant remark, I have doubts if it's possible to transmit my understanding in a more clear way.
Oh, by the way, astrology has its foundations on the "as above, so below" hermetic stuff, and doesn't have to do much with "magnetic forces of planets" and all that crap.
Because KDE has a better infrastructure for further development?
Because KDE developers are more fanatic about the project?
I can surely say that at least one GNOME developer submited a proposal for a desktop agnostic enhacement (if you're really interested, you might want to check this).
Seriously, the possibilities are too broad to make a correct statement. But I can point some of the possible reasons:
People think GNOME is pretty much feature complete, regarding high level enhacement possibilities.
People are afraid of developing stuff for GNOME due to some issues (real or not) with the platform itself.
People that use and prefer GNOME have a more broad view of their system, and think GNOME is just another component, instead of their whole computer experience, thus thinking there are other areas that need more attention than their Desktop Environment.
I think the most accurate, though, is that KDE simply has a larger user base that have programming skills. I guess we can't be too far from reality if we establish a relationship between that (attracted people with programming skills) and the proposals present in this "contest".
I'm even tempted to speculate that GNOME (as a Desktop Environment, but certainly not as a development platform) is much more successful than KDE. Even if KDE's userbase is larger, it just means that people that use GNOME are much more oblivious to all this programming stuff, meaning it's prefered by Joe Sixpack.
Of course, all this becomes non-sense when you realize that Linux itself isn't even listed, while FreeBSD is so high (considering that Linux has a much wider user base and many more people contributing to it).
So, two possibilities remain:
The ammount of people with spirit of initiative, high coding skills, creative and rethorical (afterall, you got to convince them you are "worthy").
People that have their kids starving and really need this to feed them.
So, either KDE attracts super human beings or GNOME attracts only rich bastards to whom 1000 dollars mean nothing.
Nice troll on GNOME, but I can say you probably also think the iPod is a screwed interface, because it doesn't have half of the buttons that your car's stereo has, to push.
I very much doubt that a soccer mom has different requirements. I want something that lets me get my work done. I don't launch GNOME to spend hours tweaking it, but to get work done. Unlike many "geeks", this "geek" prefers to spend his time actually learning stuff, not seeing what color my cursor turns when I choose "red".
Let me use an analogy to make it clearer. There's a "one true geek" and you. Both had this urge for phones. The "one true geek" would get an "old" phone, lots of documents stating how it works, open it wide, completely dismantle it and try to reassemble it back. You would go out, buy a cellphone, and wouldn't really care about anything too melodramatic: stick with changing the color of the LCD screen, the background image, and enjoy the possibility to configure what tune to play when the brother calls, making it different from the girlfriend.
So, hardcore geeks don't really give a shit about tweaking KDE. But they do give a shit when they want to configure the bloody screen resolution and can't, because it's like searching for a needle in a haystack.
I have made several attempts to switch to Linux completely, but still find myself going back to windoze simply for usability.
I thought this was an oxymoron. And then you launch Winamp or iTunes to listen to some music, Windows Media Player to view some movies, Microsoft Office to do some stuff, MSN Messenger to talk to some friends, and find out they all look completely different.
But since I don't want to quote you out of context, use those words to my interest, and completely miss the point, let me say that installation of software in most Linux distributions is, undoubtedly, much easier than in Windows (of course, depending on the package system). Apt and repository based installers usually provide you with a good deal of software, which, in 99% of the cases, work instantly and couldn't be much simpler (especially when using a tool like Synaptic). Add to that the warranty that it won't have spyware, virus, or anything which may hurt your system, and you've got a pretty usable thing.
But you may be a fan of a more decentralized model, and use something like Autopackage. Let me tell you that, to me, Autopackage is the most kick-ass solution for software instalation existant on GNU/Linux systems (the only time I was in awe, was with the FreeBSD ports). It Just Works(TM).
What's funny, is that I usually instantly label people like you as someone needing to get a clue or two. So, you change your operating system, and you expect stuff to work the exact same way? Why change then? Hey, some people may find that the lack of spyware, running anti-viral software updates and defragmenting their hard drive hurts their usage, and that we should reproduce it as closely as possible.
[...] how is it that the Linux community expects to get Joe Sixpack on-board?
That's where you got it wrong, mister. The "Linux community" doesn't want to get Joe Sixpack on board. The companies do. The core of the Linux community just wants to write their goddamned software, and enter the occasional flamefest about some topic.
It's companies that are instilling values like usability and such; seeing a chance to take over the Windows desktop market, they will try to capitalize on it.
Now, I'm not saying enterprises are a bad thing. I actually happen to think they are a great thing and, without a Red Hat, I'd have never used Linux, and without Ubuntu, I'd never be truly happy using one. I'm just saying the way it is.
This Linux community you talk about is a non-existant entity people like to call up everytime they want to address this huge anarchy. They are unable to grasp the structure of this... err... thing, so they just throw it into the community. There is not a bloody company called "The Linux community" which you can blame. It's complete and absolute anarchy, where no authority exists outside each individual project. People haven't realized that, and it hurts their expectations. They expect to enter a forum with a ridiculous question, and an answer just pops up, as if it were tech support. And if it doesn't, they come to Slashdot complain how "all you linux fanboys think you're 1337 and just answer STFU RTFM and I will use windows if you don't cuddle me and kiss me, and give me honey at breakfast".
Linux is ready for the desktop, it just isn't ready for people that aren't ready for it.
The answer seems so obvious, I'm actualy reluctant in giving it.
Possibly, the parent only referenced Windows because that was what (s)he used as a Desktop.
You insist in mentioning OSX even when the need within the context is completely ludicrous. What gives?
Even though I can't understand it fully. Can anyone explain it to me a little further how does it exactly work?
On the other hand, I guess a few projects will spring using that same technology.
But I have heard that a similar file format has already been developed, so I guess the real key in this whole endeavour is integration. Can anyone tell me specifically how that (unknown to me) file format works and if it's dissimilar (in any way) to the one from Microsoft?
I have no idea why it happened, but I must confess that the first thing that sprung to my mind upon reading POSIE was "Piece Of Shit Internet Explorer".
To me, that MS-world is just unsustainable. Everybody I know only use it because they can use pirated everything for free. I don't think I know anyone who wants to - or can afford to buy a new windows, office, and everything else license every year (or even for every second version - and who wants to stick to old soft?).
Yep... If piracy wasn't an option, 99% of the people I know with a computer, would be using free alternatives instead of Windows.
So, it's really ok when RMS says that Free Software don't need to follow open standards?
Standards are important for the end user, and that's it --- don't misinterpret the man's words. If not for us, why would the developer care about them?
So, it's not really wether Free Software does, or does not, follow standards. It's wether there's any point in software following standards.
GIMP is a free package for people who care about FREE software, not for people who are cheap. People who are cheap, simply grab a pirated copy of Photoshop.
Photoshop is a commercial package for people who don't care about FREE software.
It's understandable Adobe doesn't see a target audience. People that don't care about FREE software, are probably using Windows or MacOSX anyways. Those who do, probably would never pay to use a non-free app.
You are absolutely right, and I'm sorry to give such blind advice.
The upgrade procedure per-se is painless. Fetch the branch from cvs, follow half-dozen steps and you're done, but in the specific case of upgrading to 5.3 it will take much more, since much has changed.
Yes.
Nevertheless, you should subscribe to FreeBSD-Java team's mailing list. They will be able to help much more in depth, regarding that subject. Though, officially the ports are in freeze, they may have some stuff ready to be committed which you could use. Give them a ring, and lend a hand!:)
Try FreeBSD 5.3 when it's out. If you can't wait almost a month, give a go to 5.2.1. It will be painless to upgrade to 5.3.
The STABLE branch is, as it's named, quite stable, but it doesn't have the new scheduler (ULE), and stuff like that. If you're looking for a desktop experience, try the most recent 5.x release, if you're looking for a server, I advise you to take a peek at 4.x.
But if you're looking to find the ultimate desktop, you can look somewhere else. I've been a long time FreeBSD user and I recently tried Fedore Core 2, and I'm in awe with the integration supplied.
FreeBSD is the ultimate server Operating System, but the ports team, in general, still can't match the level of integration provided by vendors like SuSE and RedHat (even Mandrake, for that matter), so keep your hopes low. On the other hand, the ports system really lifts any problem with dependencies, and everything. The package management facility is, in my humble opinion, much better than anything else I've seen.
Nevertheless, give it a shot, it won't hurt. Just don't think you'll have the ultimate desktop waiting for you.
By the way, FreeBSD is currently on ports freeze, which means no new ports will be added, in order to concentrate all of the resources in making sure every port builds as it should. Usually, several dozens of ports are added each day, but while the freeze lasts, only port fixes will be committed.
I'm suggesting that the whole GNOME hasn't been fully ported to FreeBSD. As you should know, platforms have their own quirks, and FreeBSD is no exception in that regard. There's lots of software that doensn't work out of the box (grab the source and compile), not just GNOME, and it's nobody's fault.
That said, GNOME 2.6 works fully. In 2.7.x (2.8), HAL is non-operative, the rest is being taken care of (as far as I know, I'm not part of the FreeBSD-GNOME team). They do a spectacular effort, managing to get stuff right on time.
Be careful with the GNOME experience on FreeBSD. There's stuff that still doesn't work/isn't ported, like HAL (the thing that powers D-BUS, which in turn makes stuff like Gnome-Volume-Manager work).
To be honest, I believe GTK will start get much better within the win32 platform. The gnumeric guys are trying to port the spreadsheet, and they'll probably give a push to GTK developers.
I'm extremely happy in watching Marcus and the whole FreeBSD-Gnome team doing such a good job in bringing a full-blown, easy to build (can't beat the ports collection) gnome desktop into the OS.
I wonder if they have any plans to bring Ximian Desktop or Dropline or something like that into the ports collection... I think it could be interesting.
Nevertheless, I'm still considering the gnome 2.5 changes, but I'll probably leap towards testing it and do some reporting from my side, since I'm not much of a coder!:)
P.S.- Do these people think they're funny or something? This whole "BSD is dying" crap from linsux/winblows fanboys, is getting on my nerve...
fuckin wankers
We might aswell take off the BSD section, with this kind of feeback all the time, it's plain useless.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll use preview nextime.
I promise.
Then he should get rid of them as you say. Perhaps move them to sections where people with their technical skills are needed, instead of recruiting new people. Back to the topic: there are more ways to measure productivity: - System downtime. - Number of break ins into the system. - Number of "bugs" reported, concerning network related issues (latency between connections, and such) which can be tracked down as fault of this administrator's network. I'm sure we could brainstorm a few more, but I'm here to give an "opinion", not perform as a consultant. If you prefer to measure your work the other way around to better match your company's coworkers, you could put it the other way around - for example, "system uptime" instead of "system downtime".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy
I mean, once could always say that people who believe in computer science don't do so because of logic. They cling to the hope that the computing environment is not just a giant program, that their software is somehow made unique among other programs by their architecture, system integration, and nice UI features.
Judging by all the modded up comments, I guess I'm the only freak around here.
Astrology is as much belief to the average person as is computer science. In school, we are taught to get used to it, not actually knowing how it works or why it works. This is very clear when you start asking your teacher questions and she starts being unable to answer them in a clear, logical and sensible way.
I'm going to reason my explanation with this premise: the average person (in this case, this would mean you) is as aware of what astrology really is the same way the "average joe" or "joe sixpack" is aware of computer science. I'm sure many of you can recall stuff which many ordinary people would be astonished by, yet they are considered true and real: try explaining how a central processing unit works (I know this isn't purely into computer science, but some students actually have classes of how and why it works). The same goes for astrology.
Astrology is not witchcraft, or superstition. The same way there are several ways to practice astrology (heliocentric, geocentric, blah blah), there are also computer scientists which dedicate their time using C or Python or something else.
The results, of course, differ. So do the results in computer science, hence the claim that the language doesn't guarantee a good result, although it can help, it's all in the hands of the programmer.
So, if you think computer science is science, so is astrology. There may be debates about the "jupiter alignement with mars" true meaning, but you guys still discuss wether threads are better than asynchronous stuff. Why not simply sort it out? Exactly! Because both solve the same problem in different ways, and may be appliable depending on the situation.
Yes, there are charlatans who make money from people's emotional weaknesses. There are others who do serious work. This could be said of any kind of business.
I'm sorry to carry this with simplistic analogies, but after reading such an ignorant remark, I have doubts if it's possible to transmit my understanding in a more clear way.
Oh, by the way, astrology has its foundations on the "as above, so below" hermetic stuff, and doesn't have to do much with "magnetic forces of planets" and all that crap.
Because KDE suffers from featuritis?
Because KDE has a better infrastructure for further development?
Because KDE developers are more fanatic about the project?
I can surely say that at least one GNOME developer submited a proposal for a desktop agnostic enhacement (if you're really interested, you might want to check this).
Seriously, the possibilities are too broad to make a correct statement. But I can point some of the possible reasons:
I think the most accurate, though, is that KDE simply has a larger user base that have programming skills. I guess we can't be too far from reality if we establish a relationship between that (attracted people with programming skills) and the proposals present in this "contest".
I'm even tempted to speculate that GNOME (as a Desktop Environment, but certainly not as a development platform) is much more successful than KDE. Even if KDE's userbase is larger, it just means that people that use GNOME are much more oblivious to all this programming stuff, meaning it's prefered by Joe Sixpack.
Of course, all this becomes non-sense when you realize that Linux itself isn't even listed, while FreeBSD is so high (considering that Linux has a much wider user base and many more people contributing to it).
So, two possibilities remain:
So, either KDE attracts super human beings or GNOME attracts only rich bastards to whom 1000 dollars mean nothing.
Nice troll on GNOME, but I can say you probably also think the iPod is a screwed interface, because it doesn't have half of the buttons that your car's stereo has, to push.
I very much doubt that a soccer mom has different requirements. I want something that lets me get my work done. I don't launch GNOME to spend hours tweaking it, but to get work done. Unlike many "geeks", this "geek" prefers to spend his time actually learning stuff, not seeing what color my cursor turns when I choose "red".
Let me use an analogy to make it clearer. There's a "one true geek" and you. Both had this urge for phones. The "one true geek" would get an "old" phone, lots of documents stating how it works, open it wide, completely dismantle it and try to reassemble it back. You would go out, buy a cellphone, and wouldn't really care about anything too melodramatic: stick with changing the color of the LCD screen, the background image, and enjoy the possibility to configure what tune to play when the brother calls, making it different from the girlfriend.
So, hardcore geeks don't really give a shit about tweaking KDE. But they do give a shit when they want to configure the bloody screen resolution and can't, because it's like searching for a needle in a haystack.
I thought this was an oxymoron. And then you launch Winamp or iTunes to listen to some music, Windows Media Player to view some movies, Microsoft Office to do some stuff, MSN Messenger to talk to some friends, and find out they all look completely different.
But since I don't want to quote you out of context, use those words to my interest, and completely miss the point, let me say that installation of software in most Linux distributions is, undoubtedly, much easier than in Windows (of course, depending on the package system). Apt and repository based installers usually provide you with a good deal of software, which, in 99% of the cases, work instantly and couldn't be much simpler (especially when using a tool like Synaptic). Add to that the warranty that it won't have spyware, virus, or anything which may hurt your system, and you've got a pretty usable thing.
But you may be a fan of a more decentralized model, and use something like Autopackage. Let me tell you that, to me, Autopackage is the most kick-ass solution for software instalation existant on GNU/Linux systems (the only time I was in awe, was with the FreeBSD ports). It Just Works(TM).
What's funny, is that I usually instantly label people like you as someone needing to get a clue or two. So, you change your operating system, and you expect stuff to work the exact same way? Why change then? Hey, some people may find that the lack of spyware, running anti-viral software updates and defragmenting their hard drive hurts their usage, and that we should reproduce it as closely as possible.
That's where you got it wrong, mister. The "Linux community" doesn't want to get Joe Sixpack on board. The companies do. The core of the Linux community just wants to write their goddamned software, and enter the occasional flamefest about some topic.
It's companies that are instilling values like usability and such; seeing a chance to take over the Windows desktop market, they will try to capitalize on it.
Now, I'm not saying enterprises are a bad thing. I actually happen to think they are a great thing and, without a Red Hat, I'd have never used Linux, and without Ubuntu, I'd never be truly happy using one. I'm just saying the way it is.
This Linux community you talk about is a non-existant entity people like to call up everytime they want to address this huge anarchy. They are unable to grasp the structure of this... err... thing, so they just throw it into the community. There is not a bloody company called "The Linux community" which you can blame. It's complete and absolute anarchy, where no authority exists outside each individual project. People haven't realized that, and it hurts their expectations. They expect to enter a forum with a ridiculous question, and an answer just pops up, as if it were tech support. And if it doesn't, they come to Slashdot complain how "all you linux fanboys think you're 1337 and just answer STFU RTFM and I will use windows if you don't cuddle me and kiss me, and give me honey at breakfast".
Linux is ready for the desktop, it just isn't ready for people that aren't ready for it.
The answer seems so obvious, I'm actualy reluctant in giving it. Possibly, the parent only referenced Windows because that was what (s)he used as a Desktop. You insist in mentioning OSX even when the need within the context is completely ludicrous. What gives?
Even though I can't understand it fully. Can anyone explain it to me a little further how does it exactly work?
On the other hand, I guess a few projects will spring using that same technology.
But I have heard that a similar file format has already been developed, so I guess the real key in this whole endeavour is integration. Can anyone tell me specifically how that (unknown to me) file format works and if it's dissimilar (in any way) to the one from Microsoft?
I have no idea why it happened, but I must confess that the first thing that sprung to my mind upon reading POSIE was "Piece Of Shit Internet Explorer".
Yep... If piracy wasn't an option, 99% of the people I know with a computer, would be using free alternatives instead of Windows.
Standards are important for the end user, and that's it --- don't misinterpret the man's words. If not for us, why would the developer care about them?
So, it's not really wether Free Software does, or does not, follow standards. It's wether there's any point in software following standards.
Make it Open Source, and license it under the Free Software Foundation. They'll make the case for you.
You can still sell it. Simply send the source to someone who buys it.
Yes. The fact that the UI hangs while rendering a page just makes me puke.
I used KDE once, and was actually in awe when I used Konqueror, simply because it did not hang while rendering a page.
No.
GIMP is a free package for people who care about FREE software, not for people who are cheap. People who are cheap, simply grab a pirated copy of Photoshop.
Photoshop is a commercial package for people who don't care about FREE software.
It's understandable Adobe doesn't see a target audience. People that don't care about FREE software, are probably using Windows or MacOSX anyways. Those who do, probably would never pay to use a non-free app.
You are absolutely right, and I'm sorry to give such blind advice.
The upgrade procedure per-se is painless. Fetch the branch from cvs, follow half-dozen steps and you're done, but in the specific case of upgrading to 5.3 it will take much more, since much has changed.
Thank you for point that out. :)
Yes. Nevertheless, you should subscribe to FreeBSD-Java team's mailing list. They will be able to help much more in depth, regarding that subject. Though, officially the ports are in freeze, they may have some stuff ready to be committed which you could use. Give them a ring, and lend a hand! :)
Try FreeBSD 5.3 when it's out. If you can't wait almost a month, give a go to 5.2.1. It will be painless to upgrade to 5.3.
:)
The STABLE branch is, as it's named, quite stable, but it doesn't have the new scheduler (ULE), and stuff like that. If you're looking for a desktop experience, try the most recent 5.x release, if you're looking for a server, I advise you to take a peek at 4.x.
But if you're looking to find the ultimate desktop, you can look somewhere else. I've been a long time FreeBSD user and I recently tried Fedore Core 2, and I'm in awe with the integration supplied.
FreeBSD is the ultimate server Operating System, but the ports team, in general, still can't match the level of integration provided by vendors like SuSE and RedHat (even Mandrake, for that matter), so keep your hopes low. On the other hand, the ports system really lifts any problem with dependencies, and everything. The package management facility is, in my humble opinion, much better than anything else I've seen.
Nevertheless, give it a shot, it won't hurt. Just don't think you'll have the ultimate desktop waiting for you.
By the way, FreeBSD is currently on ports freeze, which means no new ports will be added, in order to concentrate all of the resources in making sure every port builds as it should. Usually, several dozens of ports are added each day, but while the freeze lasts, only port fixes will be committed.
Have fun!
I'm suggesting that the whole GNOME hasn't been fully ported to FreeBSD. As you should know, platforms have their own quirks, and FreeBSD is no exception in that regard. There's lots of software that doensn't work out of the box (grab the source and compile), not just GNOME, and it's nobody's fault.
That said, GNOME 2.6 works fully. In 2.7.x (2.8), HAL is non-operative, the rest is being taken care of (as far as I know, I'm not part of the FreeBSD-GNOME team). They do a spectacular effort, managing to get stuff right on time.
No noticeable resemblance, except they share good taste in some places.
Be careful with the GNOME experience on FreeBSD. There's stuff that still doesn't work/isn't ported, like HAL (the thing that powers D-BUS, which in turn makes stuff like Gnome-Volume-Manager work).
Freedom!
To be honest, I believe GTK will start get much better within the win32 platform. The gnumeric guys are trying to port the spreadsheet, and they'll probably give a push to GTK developers.
I'm extremely happy in watching Marcus and the whole FreeBSD-Gnome team doing such a good job in bringing a full-blown, easy to build (can't beat the ports collection) gnome desktop into the OS.
I wonder if they have any plans to bring Ximian Desktop or Dropline or something like that into the ports collection... I think it could be interesting.
Nevertheless, I'm still considering the gnome 2.5 changes, but I'll probably leap towards testing it and do some reporting from my side, since I'm not much of a coder! :)
P.S.- Do these people think they're funny or something? This whole "BSD is dying" crap from linsux/winblows fanboys, is getting on my nerve...
fuckin wankers
We might aswell take off the BSD section, with this kind of feeback all the time, it's plain useless.
If *BSD is so bad, why do people keep trolling it and trying to bash it, and say "oh, look, our linsux/winblows is better than *BSD".
It's about time people start getting a grip!
I for one would like to have the financial resources to allow myself an indulgency as to participate in BSD's 10 years party.