I expect no less than 5-6 more in reply to this post.
Come on, people, he only got 3 so far, work with him.
Re:It's like nothing we've seen .. since Linux
on
A New Kind of OS
·
· Score: 1
Should, would... Let's be realistic. Your (A) choice is the most realistic one. Apparently people aren't willing or capable to do (B), so be it. But (C) is just utopic. How are people going to "tell" computers to do stuff without any concept of programming? Short of creating those nice little Asimov robots and tell them "SPD, go get some selenium". And you probably remember how well THAT turned out.
Because in the end it all comes down to this: people shouldn't use tools that they don't know how to use. It doesn't matter if it's a positronic robot or a kitchen knife. If you're not good with it you'll only hurt yourself and not accomplish anything much.
After the holiday spending spree, most people won't have money left and those who got new computers as gifts will need to upgrade their OS.
Screw little Jimmy. Daddy *needs* to try Vista.
Re:It's like nothing we've seen .. since Linux
on
A New Kind of OS
·
· Score: 1
All that programming does is simply interface with the machine at a slightly more complex level than the average user.
I'm going to have to object to this idea. No, "programming" does not mean to "simply interface with the machine". It's just part of a much more complex process, which involves designing the way programs work, interact with each other, with the OS, with the resources, with the user, THEN developing those programs, THEN supporting them, improving them and so on.
Riddle me this: why do computers attract so many amateurs who fall under the impression that they can be "programmers" too, but, mind you, without learning all the huge amount of knowledge that an actual software engineer is required to know?
What the hell is it about computers? Ubiquity? I bet more people have fridges or cars than they have computers, yet I don't see nearly as many people boasting that they too can repair or design fridges or cars (because they can't!) This is also true for computer hardware.
But talk about software and everybody's suddenly an expert and can "program". Newsflash: NO YOU DON'T, NOT PROPERLY, NOT WITHOUT TRAINING AND KNOWLEDGE. Do amateurs design planes? Do amateurs oversee construction sites? Wake up, it's called "engineering" for a reason.
Ah, but consider Physics as a religion. It explains the world and you can prove it with fact and Math. What other religion doesn't require blind belief out of you?
Personally, I'm more interested by the fact that small power devices can do more and more when it comes to Internet connectivity. Will they eventually delegate all such functionality to separate devices?
If you want to sound retarded by proving you don't understand the difference between products and services, or between intellectual content and private property, be my guest.
I seriously don't see what one application's poor clipboard habits have to do with the "Linux desktop" as a whole. Linux gives you a choice. You can replicate whatever kind of desktop you had 10 years ago without a problem. All the worthy desktop environments and window managers and their tools are still out there, hell, even the unworthy ones are still out there.
All I see is one person unhappy with the defaults that certain distro's ship with. But you seem to forget two things: (1) defaults are meant to be dumbed down, because, well, most people are not computer geniuses; and (2) it's just a default, you can change it.
Getting hardware to work is the hardest thing you can do on Linux.
I call bullshit. Hardware support gets better on Linux by the day. And when something doesn't work at least you have a decent chance of finding out why it doesn't and perhaps even make it work after all. If the.exe install kit or driver CD you get on Windows doesn't work, that's it, period. Nobody knows what's in there, the best they can do is make wild guesses. And I think we're all familiar with the old "oh, just reinstall Windows" recommendation. The sad thing is, it sometimes solves the problem. Until the next time, that is. Which just goes to show how screwed up hardware support can be on Windows.
So let's stop the bullshit about Microsoft and Apple "controlling" hardware support. A good driver is one that works and one you can get help for when it doesn't. Linux distros today have this covered much better than Microsoft ever did. Yes, almost entirely via community support, which beats the hell out of any kind of support you get for a Windows box. Try asking Microsoft or Dell support why your TV tuner driver doesn't work and see what answer you get.
Both you (the article you linked at) and a couple of other posters in this thread have mentioned the difficulty of Apple keeping up with Windows XP updates.
What XP updates?
First of all, XP SP2 is fairly stable right now. They can take the API and freeze it. (Yes, Apple has the code to XP, including SP2. Read the Cringely article.) No need to upgrade it any further. Most of Microsoft's upgrades are for security reasons anyway, and since Windows apps would presumably run sandboxed in some manner, even a big security flaw would be of no concern to the surrounding OS X.
Second, Microsoft themselves is preparing to ditch XP and shove Vista down everybody's throat. There's very little chance, IMHO, there's going to be a SP3 for XP.
So, hipothetically speaking, if Apple would sync this feature with the nearing launch of Vista, people would have two choices: (1) take a chance on Vista, with all the added extra spending on hardware upgrades, put up with the misery until SP1 and get used to all the new quirks. Or (2) buy an Apple, enjoy OS X and keep on running all the apps for XP they liked, already payed for, and no need to put up with any surprises.
That's what Cringely meant by "no chance for Microsoft to screw it up by accident". Of course that, given the opportunity, Microsoft would fuck up the API in some way to rain on Apple's parade. And it would be very hard for Apple to reverse engineer any post-SP2 changes anyway. No, if Apple does this is will be the SP2 API and that's it, final.
Why bother supporting one OS when you can support many?
This is not just "one OS". This is Windows XP we're talking about, arguably the most widespread desktop operating system on the planet, with the most hyped up application base and the most popular Windows OS to date.
Mac OS X security and desktop environment, on a real Mac, plus all the XP applications you want, minus the cost of the XP license. Dunno, seems like a steal to me.
You know, I really have to wonder why Apple doesn't do what Cringely suggests here: perfectly transparent XP emulation, on OS X.
I'm told Apple has long had this running in the Cupertino lab -- Intel Macs running OS X while mixing Apple and XP applications. This is not a guess or a rumor, this something that has been demonstrated and observed by people who have since reported to me.
Think of the implications. A souped-up OS X kernel with native Windows API support and the prospect of mixing and matching Windows and Mac applications would be, for many users, the best of both worlds. There would be no copy of Windows XP to buy, no large overhead of emulation or compatibility middleware, no chance for Microsoft to accidentally screw things up, substantially better security, and no need to even take a chance on Windows Vista.
Since when are moons and asteroids without names included in the list of planets?
Oh, but they'll get names. And what names. I believe UB313 is currently nicknamed "Xena" and its satellite is "Buffy". Quite a leap from the other planets, whose names originate in Greek/Roman mythology. See the Gods next to Buffy, the Vampire Slayer. Seriously now, it would be quite a change.
"Truth", with a capital T, is an imaginary concept. Of course it should be left to religion, which deals with explaining the unknown with fairy-tales. But let's leave philosophers out of it, shall we? Those guys actually try to make sense of things, rather than believe blindly.
These computer end-users are the same people that have to be told:
Do not operate toaster outdoors in a wet location.
Do not insert fork or other metal object into toaster slots.
Do not operate toaster while any part is under water.
Do not insert over-sized foods into the toaster.
Do not insert metal foil packages into the toaster.
Do not place plastic wrapped items into the toaster.
Failure to clean crumb tray may result in a risk of fire.
There's a major difference at work here. A toaster uses rather simple concepts, such as "water+electricity=bad" or "heat+plastic=goo". By contrast, most of the computer is a mistery to the casual user. Most people don't have the required knowledge, not because they're stupid or unwilling, it's because it's too-bloody-much to take in.
Why dis XMMS if you don't use it? Is there any reason to be bitter? For many people, myself included, XMMS is still the best out there. Not everybody feels the need for music libraries.
I pick out the dampening wires on aperture grille CRTs immediately, too, whilst most people don't seem to notice them at all, or aren't bothered by them. That's cause you're nitpicking, man, seriously now.:) Of course you can see the dampening wires if you look for them. But they're very thin and placed a few millimeters away from the actual tube where the image forms. The slight difference in eyesight focus effectively renders them nearly-invisible. Try placing some text directly under the wire. If you look at the wire you see it; if you look at the text, you see the text.
I suppose it would be too much to expect to be able to use both caching and encryption.:) First because you can't cache what you can't identify, second because the ISP would most definitely be caching "gray" content. Still, it would be pretty sweet to have the ISP's help distribute BT content without knowing what's in it. They'd still get their bandwidth saving, wouldn't they?:)
Slashdot Mirror
Should, would... Let's be realistic. Your (A) choice is the most realistic one. Apparently people aren't willing or capable to do (B), so be it. But (C) is just utopic. How are people going to "tell" computers to do stuff without any concept of programming? Short of creating those nice little Asimov robots and tell them "SPD, go get some selenium". And you probably remember how well THAT turned out.
Because in the end it all comes down to this: people shouldn't use tools that they don't know how to use. It doesn't matter if it's a positronic robot or a kitchen knife. If you're not good with it you'll only hurt yourself and not accomplish anything much.
Riddle me this: why do computers attract so many amateurs who fall under the impression that they can be "programmers" too, but, mind you, without learning all the huge amount of knowledge that an actual software engineer is required to know?
What the hell is it about computers? Ubiquity? I bet more people have fridges or cars than they have computers, yet I don't see nearly as many people boasting that they too can repair or design fridges or cars (because they can't!) This is also true for computer hardware.
But talk about software and everybody's suddenly an expert and can "program". Newsflash: NO YOU DON'T, NOT PROPERLY, NOT WITHOUT TRAINING AND KNOWLEDGE. Do amateurs design planes? Do amateurs oversee construction sites? Wake up, it's called "engineering" for a reason.
It's not the food, is the fact it's being served by happy gnomes dressed in all the colours of the rainbow.
Ah, but consider Physics as a religion. It explains the world and you can prove it with fact and Math. What other religion doesn't require blind belief out of you?
Personally, I'm more interested by the fact that small power devices can do more and more when it comes to Internet connectivity. Will they eventually delegate all such functionality to separate devices?
If you want to sound retarded by proving you don't understand the difference between products and services, or between intellectual content and private property, be my guest.
Phew!
I seriously don't see what one application's poor clipboard habits have to do with the "Linux desktop" as a whole. Linux gives you a choice. You can replicate whatever kind of desktop you had 10 years ago without a problem. All the worthy desktop environments and window managers and their tools are still out there, hell, even the unworthy ones are still out there.
All I see is one person unhappy with the defaults that certain distro's ship with. But you seem to forget two things: (1) defaults are meant to be dumbed down, because, well, most people are not computer geniuses; and (2) it's just a default, you can change it.
So let's stop the bullshit about Microsoft and Apple "controlling" hardware support. A good driver is one that works and one you can get help for when it doesn't. Linux distros today have this covered much better than Microsoft ever did. Yes, almost entirely via community support, which beats the hell out of any kind of support you get for a Windows box. Try asking Microsoft or Dell support why your TV tuner driver doesn't work and see what answer you get.
Both you (the article you linked at) and a couple of other posters in this thread have mentioned the difficulty of Apple keeping up with Windows XP updates.
What XP updates?
First of all, XP SP2 is fairly stable right now. They can take the API and freeze it. (Yes, Apple has the code to XP, including SP2. Read the Cringely article.) No need to upgrade it any further. Most of Microsoft's upgrades are for security reasons anyway, and since Windows apps would presumably run sandboxed in some manner, even a big security flaw would be of no concern to the surrounding OS X.
Second, Microsoft themselves is preparing to ditch XP and shove Vista down everybody's throat. There's very little chance, IMHO, there's going to be a SP3 for XP.
So, hipothetically speaking, if Apple would sync this feature with the nearing launch of Vista, people would have two choices: (1) take a chance on Vista, with all the added extra spending on hardware upgrades, put up with the misery until SP1 and get used to all the new quirks. Or (2) buy an Apple, enjoy OS X and keep on running all the apps for XP they liked, already payed for, and no need to put up with any surprises.
That's what Cringely meant by "no chance for Microsoft to screw it up by accident". Of course that, given the opportunity, Microsoft would fuck up the API in some way to rain on Apple's parade. And it would be very hard for Apple to reverse engineer any post-SP2 changes anyway. No, if Apple does this is will be the SP2 API and that's it, final.
What I want to know about Voyager is: does it run Linux?
Mac OS X security and desktop environment, on a real Mac, plus all the XP applications you want, minus the cost of the XP license. Dunno, seems like a steal to me.
I thought Earth+Moon was also considered a "binary planet" thing, due to the rather extraordinary size of the Moon (for a satellite).
"Truth", with a capital T, is an imaginary concept. Of course it should be left to religion, which deals with explaining the unknown with fairy-tales. But let's leave philosophers out of it, shall we? Those guys actually try to make sense of things, rather than believe blindly.
Missa is Mahoiney. Missa gonna teach you the numbers.
Why dis XMMS if you don't use it? Is there any reason to be bitter? For many people, myself included, XMMS is still the best out there. Not everybody feels the need for music libraries.
I pick out the dampening wires on aperture grille CRTs immediately, too, whilst most people don't seem to notice them at all, or aren't bothered by them. That's cause you're nitpicking, man, seriously now. :) Of course you can see the dampening wires if you look for them. But they're very thin and placed a few millimeters away from the actual tube where the image forms. The slight difference in eyesight focus effectively renders them nearly-invisible. Try placing some text directly under the wire. If you look at the wire you see it; if you look at the text, you see the text.
I suppose it would be too much to expect to be able to use both caching and encryption. :) First because you can't cache what you can't identify, second because the ISP would most definitely be caching "gray" content. Still, it would be pretty sweet to have the ISP's help distribute BT content without knowing what's in it. They'd still get their bandwidth saving, wouldn't they? :)