We can test this hypothesis. Look at the world around you. Where does most useful software come from? Companies. Yes, a good deal of software, some of it quite useful, comes from hobbyists, for lack of a better term. But most of it comes from commercial development.
So no, the development of software isn't inherently restricted to those with money, but it is practically restricted to those with money.
I picture a college dropout Bill Gates in a hotel room working on the foundations of a business empire... before there was a Microsoft. Before there was a company. Hmmmmmmm... if you have a company you have more money to spend, but if you don't have anyone putting legal roadblocks in front of you, you have time to spend. In the overall picture of business, investing a few thousand dollars in a computer, and spending your evenings and weekends working on project is nothing. Of course if you are blocked from even starting by stupid patents paid for by companies with money... So maybe it is better said that the reason companies with money produce much of the software now-a-days is that they are starting to use a big patent stick to beat down the little guys.
I would like to patent the concept of lining up at a cash register in order to pay for goods in a store. Or maybe the concept of my customers using a shopping cart to carry their goods in, instead of buying items one at a time. What a load of crap.
What if another company down the road buys Apple. Then, in an SCO-ish way, starts law suits as a money making venture. The point is, even if Apple doesn't attack eveyone with patent lawsuites now, it doens't mean in the future they won't.
It would be better if Apple just started using the technology without patenting it. Then if in a few years from now a company were to try patenting it, there would definately be prior art.
So if there is no monetary motive involved, then there is no need to patent it. However, I would guess there is likely a monetary motive involved.
Re:Suse needs to improve support more than anythin
on
Suse 9.1 Reviews?
·
· Score: 1
I just speak my beliefs. For those who care, I work and program in Unix using C, Java, Perl, Shell, C++... and I'm writing this in my Firefox browser on Linux. So if the fact that I am slagging a specific Linux distro should not mean much.
The biggest thing that bugs me about the Suse distro is that although over-all it is pretty good, they won't (notice I didn't say "can't") support the people who support them... especially those who support them financially. I guess to their mind, there is a minimum limit to what they need dollar-wise, before they will do what they should do. You can pay them for the distro, but woe is you that thinks you should get anything more than the freely downloadable software for it. It is this kind of business strategy that will keep people from purchasing and using Linux on a large scale.
As for MS. I use it as well. I am sure most of us here do... it is ubiquitous in the business world. For the most part, their programs work quite well, and do what they do as advertised. If their program doesn't do what you want, you use another. On the other hand, I think the security in their programs is horrible. As well, I think they use their monopoly in a very bad way to trample innovation and competition in the market (my own opinion only... in case they want to sue me!).
So... I am on the side of Linux, and wish that companies like Suse would get their heads out of their asses so that 'Mr./Ms. Average' would be able to have a credible alternative to the monopolist. The average person doesn't want to have to spend hours of their own time researching why something doesn't work. Heck, the average IT support person doesn't have the time to do that either... and businesses won't pay for the support person to research a problem because the combination of a non-working driver/configuration and shitty support from the distro is preventing a business user from having their 'net meeting'. Not every business can afford to have enterprise level support contracts. In fact, I would say most business can't afford that. And if they are asked to pay, say, a US$300.00 per ("enterprise") seat license to a company for a package of software written mostly by others, then why isn't MS also a viable alternative?
The nature of the software is not the only thing to consider when making a purchase. I think support is every bit as important. So I don't think slagging a distro because they won't support the paying end user is a terrible thing. If others do, that's their problem.:-)
Suse needs to improve support more than anything
on
Suse 9.1 Reviews?
·
· Score: 1
I would say the biggest improvement Suse needs to make is in customer support. As it stands, it is my experience that there currently is none.
I bought an HP zv5034us laptop, repartitioned the hard-drive and installed a purchased ($US90.00) version of Suse 9.0 professional on the newly created partition. The sound did not work. I emailed Suse support, and they told me they did not cover sound support on the installation of their distro. However... if I wanted to pay even more, they would help me out.
This is plain and simple, ridiculous. Just about every computer produced today has a sound card, and just about every user that uses a computer wants sound (and I'm not talking about the ever decreasing number of command-line-only junkies either:-). Not supporting sound installation is outragous, especially considering I was one of the few individuals to pay for it. I used to believe that one should occasionally pay for a distro to keep them in business... not after that. Mind you... although they have jumped on the Linux bandwagon, I would have to say that I haven't found a great deal of non-server Linux support from HP either. You would think they would provide drivers for their hardware. Ah well... I guess Linux is also a good buzz word for the BHB's of the world.
So once again, I would say the biggest improvement Suse needs to make is in customer support. I guess I'll try out Fedora, or Gentoo next.
If people didn't let their feelings for a product be known, how would we know how it's doing? We can't just walk around saying "it's all great". People need to give honest (even if not asked for) critiques so we know what needs to improve. This happens to be a good forum on which to share among other things, critiques and views on various items and topics. I would rather people let me know when I need to improve something than keep silent, as it gives two options: to act on the request, or do nothing. Keeping silent only gives me one option!:-)
For that reason (the source code) it will ALWAYS be better than photoshop.
As a bonus, just for jrockway, here is something else you might think works better than photoshop. It is pretty crappy for graphics, but you can see the source code.;-)
In the real world, when your living is on the line, the best tool you can afford is the one you use. Whether you can see the source code or not doesn't even come into the picture. 99.999% of computer users can't do anything with the source code anyway.
I am a Canadian who has been living in Missouri (get the name?:-)... I moved from Alberta... I think the provincial premier Ralph (who I think of as 'Ralffff, do I have a drinking problem?') Klein and the federal Alliance party's Alberta members make Bush look left wing. They want to privatize medicare, give Bush style tax cuts to the rich, and have already driven most folks on welfare into British Columbia.
Ralp probably thinks of it (Linux != commercial games) as a troll because (1) this really is a Linux-user-heavy forum and (2) the original assertion is probably not entirely true.
While Linux users do not make up the majority of computer users, I would make a wild ass guess that the majority of Linux users are very probably gamers. To make an even more totally wild ass guess, if we say there are several hundred million computer users out there, and 2% are Linux users, this would make a few million potential gamers to sell to.
Mind you, these same people probably also have Windows boxes, XBoxes, etc. as well. However if commercial interest in selling to Linux users grew, we would probably find more drivers and utilities produced for Linux in order to support the games. After all, it is my humble opinion that games were one of the main drivers of home PC technology for a long time. Granted other new software required more horsepower, but heck, you really needed a monster computer to get the graphics and AI of the new games!:-)
NOTE: I refuse to let facts get in the way of this conversation
A very good cynical comment but... I don't think Mr. Perens is saying that KDE will be supported by User Linux. It actually looks the opposite. But the comment applies anyway.
It would seem on the surface that the many customers who do not, or can not pay big money, will have to use Gnome (or another distribution), even though many of them really want KDE. The key info in the article says that if you pay a third party support company (Perens LLC for example) you can have KDE supported. A shame since I was looking forward to a viable alternative to Redhat and Suse.
From the posting by Mr. Perens:
I already have a customer asking for Perens LLC to provide commercial
support for KDE on the UserLinux platform. And we will do so, even
though KDE is not the chosen GUI of the UserLinux project. This is an
option for any UserLinux service provider.
As was mentioned, if the customer wants it, why is it not supported directly? Is it because it is not lucrative to do so. Call me cynical but maybe it is more profitable to make a product that is almost what the customers want, and then use your consulting company to support the missing pieces?
At least that is how it appears to me. If I am wrong, I take it back and apologize. But after all, it looks like Mr. Perens is saying User Linux still does not support KDE. However, the troubling part is that at the same time, while he is one of the chief architects (if not the chief architect) of UserLinux, and is the person responsible for excluding KDE in the first place, he is saying he will support KDE on UserLinux on the side, via his consulting company, for a price. (I think I am making a safe assumption that he will charge a pretty penny for this support.) Hey, we all have to eat, so I guess in the end it's OK for Mr. Perens to do this. But I am a bit cynical of the whole thing too.
Remember, if people don't like the distro because they can't afford the time or money to have a GUI they like installed, then they won't use it. Then it will fail. End of story. Otherwise it will either run or limp along.
Re:Patents [DO NOT] help [AS THEY ARE APPLIED NOW]
on
All Encompassing Patents
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Patenting a software concept is wrong and reduces or eliminates competition and innovation. Exactly the opposite of what a patent is supposed to do. Patenting a mechanism or algorithm is understandable, but not the idea of what the tool is used for.
For example, word processors. Imagine if the people who made WordStar were able to take out a patent back then on the concept of word processors, or the idea of using an editor to format documents. We either would still be using html-like command tags to do thing like
^PBmake a few words bold in a sentence,^PB
or we would still be in stone age wysiwyg. I remember those days and am happy they are past. Regardless, there would have been no competition and no incentive for
WordPerfect or Microsoft (Word) (and others) to make better word processors. Heck, Open Office (Writer) might not even exist if WordStar had been able to obtain a patent back then. Who would waste time dreaming about working on a project you would get sued for starting?
What would happen if other industries used/abused patents in such a way? Imagine if only one pharmaceutical company were allowed to patent the concept of treating cancer or other diseases. Our life expectancies would be 10 or 20 years less. Thank goodness this isn't the case. But hold it, maybe they should be able to patent the idea of taking a pill? Just kidding (for the overly literal minded people), but only just... software patents are like patents on the idea of fighting cancer with chemicals, and many times like the idea of patenting the idea of taking a pill when really, it is the active ingredient (for want of better terminology) of the pill which is patentable.
The idea of patenting concepts like shopping carts, score tallies, ranking, etc. is ridiculous, and will ruin competition and innovation, and hurt the average citizen immensely. Patenting the algorithms and the inner workings I can understand. i.e. If you want to do it, do it, but don't steal my code. JUST DON'T STOP ME FROM BUILDING A BETTER MOUSE TRAP!!
Ya, this might be redundant, but I just had to rant on this one.:-)
Well, if they did want to, there are a number of ways for them to try to figure out what OS you are running. If you search google, you can find a number of articles discussing techniques for doing this. For example, a very quick search yielded this info at insecure.org.
I am not sure how they could tie dynamic IP addresses that may be running Linux to the actual user (name, address, etc.), but I am sure if we looked, we could find a way. I would think static IP's would not be much of a challenge, especially if it were tied to a domain name (it would then be a 'no brainer').
But perhaps there is not enough money in the small fry to warrant SCO doing this. And if they try an 'RIAA', maybe if the various defence funds set up by IBM, Redhat, etc. were opened up to help the little guys, then I would think the return on investment (cost of lawyers versus the money they could get from a home user) would be so low as to not be worth while.
Mind you, given that IBM and Redhat, etc. are not likely to expand their net to back home users of Linux, and also given SCO's history, this could happen. Given SCO's history: that unless there is something we are not seeing, they are already going after something with a negative return on their investment: suing IBM without seemingly a leg to stand on.
I wonder what would happen if you could get some upper management folks to act as apprentices to top level IT folks for a week or two. At best, they might actually learn what is going on with their own IT departments, and how to really help. At worst, they might come down with Stolkholm Syndrome.:-)
I think of this because I used to work in the chemical industry, in a facility that was totally automated. But the systems were initially programmed horribly (I wasn't the programmer). The operators all complained, and the programmer just would say they were lazy. Until upper upper management told him to work on a shift using his own programs for a month. By the end of the second month, the programs to run the plant were so much better.
I agree with him. Most distros only have the new kde on their next release after the new kde comes out. If you want the advantages of the new kde, you have to either wait till a new distro release, or pull your hair out trying to install it yourself. People are correct, this is a pre-release. But it is no easier to install it when the actual release arrives. Nor is it easy to keep up with security/bug patches if you have chosen to install it yourself.
Don't take him so literally though (about his grandmother), he is trying to make a point: In order to make it on the desktop, Mr/Mrs. Average Citizen needs to be able to install and/or upgrade things, even as complex as kde, without a hassle. The thing is, Linux is not there yet, but it will be if folks as dedicated as the KDE team seem to be keep doing what they're doing. What will hold it back are the people who get in a huff when people point out the real need to make it easy for the average user.
No-one is taking your command line (and all the power that it has) away from you. vi will always be there.:-) But the great unwashed masses out there would rather things be easy so they can use most of their time using the software, and not configuring it, and certainly not learning to configure it. If it is so complicated they need to study, they won't use it, and the idea of Linux on the desktop will fail. Windows didn't become popular because IT profesionals recommended it. It became popular because the accountants and other business users understood it, used it at home, and wanted their companies to purchase a tool that they could use easily without requiring too much training. Don't get nasty about this, it is true. It is one of the reasons MS makes so much money. It is a system that has a very low learning curve. I think with the great new Linux install packages that come with most of the major distributions (e.g. Suse, Mandrake, Redhat), things are moving that way, and will continue to do so... it's just a matter of time. Rome wan't built in a day (and all that).
My criticism here is (trying to be) constructive criticism... from someone who likes Linux (and has used it for several years) but also is frustrated with sometimes spending more time installing and configuring things than being able to use them (part of the reason is that yes, I am trying things that most desktop users wouldn't need to do). For example, I would like to be able to install the latest version of MySQL (their binary at their advice) without it telling me that an rpm installed on my system is not the right version... causing me to research how to complete the installation. It may be a surprise to some that I would actually like to program something with it, and learn the new features of the latest release, without waiting for a new distro... and not necessarily on how to install it. Same goes for KDE (and I do prefer KDE over other Linux desktops). The MS advantage that people talk about is that you can install a new version of most software without worrying about getting version errors, or errors reporting that your rpm package is not correct... Mind you, I don't like MS's corporate practices so I keep trying to stick to Linux... and it is sometimes a trying experience.
Perhaps if there could be a way for rpm type installs (or others) to check 'levels' instead of just version numbers. If you have a level that supports a set of public API's you could set up a system where even if a different version is out, as long as the standard API's still exist, then all is well. So you could have version 1.0 and version 1.1 both able to meet API level 1. i.e. You might have changed the internal workings of a function (for security or whatever), thus creating a new version (which might tell you if the correct security patch has been applied), but you wouldn't get screwed up on dependancies when installing a package when it looks for the older version of whatever library it needs. It would check the API level, see the correct one, even if the vers
correct... if IT jobs move overseas, then there won't be anyone left to make the next relational database (i.e. the next revolutionary idea). Also, we have a way of life in North America that I believe is better than most anywhere in the world (with Europe, Japan, and Australia/New Zealand pretty much equal). Healthy, educated, etc. I don't think we want to give that away to poorer nations so that we can be poor too. Also, if we give these nations access to the core of our financial systems, which is the core of our society now, other governments (who don't recognize politically correct) can have us by the 'nads if they so choose.
There is an old expression that says "you can't make the weak strong by making the strong weak." I believe it. It is necessary to bring those nations up without bringing ourselves down. Really necessary... poverty has to be tackled for sure. I don't know what the answer is, but we can't give it all away thinking that it is somehow fair. That would be some sort of messed up politically correct arguement.
Some folks argue that we let the blue collar jobs go overseas, so who cares about the tech workers? I can say most autoworkers are not stupid, but I haven't heard of many coming up with something that changes society... except maybe Henry Ford... but he was the only one I've heard of... and that was 100 years ago. Most changes come from exceptional people working with the advanced technology of their time, whether they were university educated or not. Which to me, makes the limited amount of people who are capable and willing to work in the more technical disciplines worth more money.
To me it looks like a negative (albeit somewhat trivial) example of what can happen when you outsource overseas, whether the intent of the overseas programmer was negative or not. I think this is an interesting example of how distance can amplify problems in project control and management.
However, this example sounds like this happened over here, which would have made it relatively easy to communicate what needed correction and why. To follow this through, I think it would follow that it is not the "non-anglo furriner" causes the most difficult problem, but the distance that the "non-anglo furriner" is away from the end user.
Where the real problems come up are when non-trivial problems in the coding come up. Complex problems are increased by orders of magnitude given many thousands of miles of distance, many time zone difference, and significant cultural and language differnces, all rolled together.
I'll stop now because I know these arguments are somewhat redundant. But it is so easy to start ranting on this subject.
What I think is ironic is that when I was looking at this article asking how people are coping with the knowledge that they can loose their jobs to overseas outsourcing, the banner ad on the page was for improving your outsourcing overseas.
OK, I will rephrase the statement in my original comment from:
"I think when the latitude and the resolution of digital improve, then we could ask the same question, and maybe get a positive answer."
to:
When it is convenient enough, and affordable enough to get the latitude and resolution of 8 x 10's, then maybe yes, he would use it.:-)
I am assuming there the box you use isn't a standard home PC... but maybe it can be done now. I still have a slight doubt about latitude, but I'll go for it.:-)
What you can't argue with is that on an 8 x 10 negative, there are about 600 million or more pixels... in the form of grains (I know, I counted every one of them). That means that the lense did resolve them.
The problem I would think you as an astronomer might have is that on film, the grains/pixels aren't as orderly as a digital image would be. Therefore it is harder to store the data in a format easy enough to store and retrieve consistantly. But then again, that is what makes a photographic print so nice to look at (I think). It is that 'something' inherent in the medium that makes the product unique, and in the end, 'art'.
Anyway, I would say that it isn't that digital photographs give you more information... I CAN argue that! What you are talking about is the storage medium for data collected, and a storage medium can't give you any more information than exists already. I would say digital photography might allow you to store the information in a format that may be retrieved, analyzed, and then stored again, much more easily... and more conveniently to boot.
However hydrofluoric acid is one of the only (if not the only) inorganic acid requiring an antidote if it contacts your skin... not just neutralization or dilution. HF will scavenge calcium from your system and can cause hypocalcemia, which is can be life threatening. Basically, if severe enough e.g. from a large HF burn, it can scavenge enough calcium to cause nerve ends requiring calcium to reset, to just stop firing. So bad things can happen, like your heart stopping. Other delitereous effects can also result. HF is very very dangerous. But yes, once reacted into one of its salts, it should be much reduced in danger.
Latitude
According to Adams, black and white film can be said to have 10 stops of latitude from complete shadow to white. CCD's only capture at best 5 stops. Colour positive (slide film) is better than digital, and positive has far less latitude than black and white film. Therefore the tonality will be inferior with digital as compared to black and white film. As well, with reduced latitude there is less of an ability to manipulate the image.
Resolution
Adams shot on an 8 x 10 camera. That is, the negative was 8 inches by 10 inches. There will be nothing digital in the near future with this resolution that can be carried by the photographer. (as a guess, you would need at least a 600 megapixel digital camera to match the resolution of Adams' 8 X 10 photos).
Additionally, people are trying to make the argument that because Adams liked to manipulate he might like digital. However, he liked to make sure the image he took was exposed correctly from the beginning and and the negative produced correctly so that it was ready for the end image he had in mind. In other words, taking any picture and manipulating it to get the end result he wanted was not what he did. The entire image that he would produce was planned from concept to framed image on a gallery wall. His manipulation started with the time of day, the time of year, etc when the image was captured, to knowing from the outset what chemicals he would use to process the negative(s) etc. He made sure the lighting he wanted was there... all of that. He has stated that making a fine print from an inferior negative is sometimes possible, but success if more likely from a good negative. And getting a good negative started before even putting the camera on the tripod. It has been documented that he would look at a scene as he passed by and make plans on how to shoot it to get the result he wanted. Only when conditions and his plans came together would he shoot. It seems to me that he was more methodical than even his photograph and darkroom techniques indicate.
The problem I have with digital is less with the medium than with the laziness it breeds in the photographers that use it. (Kind of like with programming and VB... nothing wrong with VB, I think, except that due to its initial ease of use, it can breed poor programming habbits... not the languages fault, it is the users fault... but that is off topic!) Many think that they can shoot any way they want, and then can put the missing elements in the final result, whether it be lighting or whatever. The thing is, you cannot put into the image what isn't there to begin with. I think if one takes care to compose the image with the kind of care you would take with film, digital is fine. And if the image is captured well, then the digital manipulations that you follow with, can really be something to look at.
Anyway, I think when the latitude and the resolution of digital improve, then we could ask the same question, and maybe get a positive answer. In the meantime, digital is still good for colour photos used in magazines and vacations. But I still think a good medium (or even 35mm) format film camera in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing, will outperform digital at least in the near term.
Could be... but you did say better service. But your point is still valid, including the fact that if the gov chips in, maybe it helps the infrastructure.
What I don't understand, and I should have brought it up earlier, is that in Canada, average DSL costs are around $35 to $40. And that is Canadian dollars. So make it around $30 U.S. And the service is not government subsidized. But there might be some tax breaks for the telcos to beef up the infrastructure. Mainly because the feds do want all Canadians to have good access to high speed internet. Some tax breaks, but the feds definately do not have a hand in implementing.
I think in the U.S. it is just "charge what the market will bear" capitalism. Which means either there isn't enough competition, or there is collusion between the companies to keep the prices high. I get DHL from a small company that runs on SBC lines, and they offer their product for around US$40 per month (including a static IP), and no (ah sayed NOOO) contract. Meanwhile SBC charges 50 bucks a month after their sucker deal expires after 4 months.
Slashdot Mirror
KDE
I picture a college dropout Bill Gates in a hotel room working on the foundations of a business empire... before there was a Microsoft. Before there was a company. Hmmmmmmm... if you have a company you have more money to spend, but if you don't have anyone putting legal roadblocks in front of you, you have time to spend. In the overall picture of business, investing a few thousand dollars in a computer, and spending your evenings and weekends working on project is nothing. Of course if you are blocked from even starting by stupid patents paid for by companies with money... So maybe it is better said that the reason companies with money produce much of the software now-a-days is that they are starting to use a big patent stick to beat down the little guys.
I would like to patent the concept of lining up at a cash register in order to pay for goods in a store. Or maybe the concept of my customers using a shopping cart to carry their goods in, instead of buying items one at a time. What a load of crap.
It would be better if Apple just started using the technology without patenting it. Then if in a few years from now a company were to try patenting it, there would definately be prior art.
So if there is no monetary motive involved, then there is no need to patent it. However, I would guess there is likely a monetary motive involved.
The biggest thing that bugs me about the Suse distro is that although over-all it is pretty good, they won't (notice I didn't say "can't") support the people who support them... especially those who support them financially. I guess to their mind, there is a minimum limit to what they need dollar-wise, before they will do what they should do. You can pay them for the distro, but woe is you that thinks you should get anything more than the freely downloadable software for it. It is this kind of business strategy that will keep people from purchasing and using Linux on a large scale.
As for MS. I use it as well. I am sure most of us here do... it is ubiquitous in the business world. For the most part, their programs work quite well, and do what they do as advertised. If their program doesn't do what you want, you use another. On the other hand, I think the security in their programs is horrible. As well, I think they use their monopoly in a very bad way to trample innovation and competition in the market (my own opinion only... in case they want to sue me!).
So... I am on the side of Linux, and wish that companies like Suse would get their heads out of their asses so that 'Mr./Ms. Average' would be able to have a credible alternative to the monopolist. The average person doesn't want to have to spend hours of their own time researching why something doesn't work. Heck, the average IT support person doesn't have the time to do that either... and businesses won't pay for the support person to research a problem because the combination of a non-working driver/configuration and shitty support from the distro is preventing a business user from having their 'net meeting'. Not every business can afford to have enterprise level support contracts. In fact, I would say most business can't afford that. And if they are asked to pay, say, a US$300.00 per ("enterprise") seat license to a company for a package of software written mostly by others, then why isn't MS also a viable alternative?
The nature of the software is not the only thing to consider when making a purchase. I think support is every bit as important. So I don't think slagging a distro because they won't support the paying end user is a terrible thing. If others do, that's their problem. :-)
I bought an HP zv5034us laptop, repartitioned the hard-drive and installed a purchased ($US90.00) version of Suse 9.0 professional on the newly created partition. The sound did not work. I emailed Suse support, and they told me they did not cover sound support on the installation of their distro. However... if I wanted to pay even more, they would help me out.
This is plain and simple, ridiculous. Just about every computer produced today has a sound card, and just about every user that uses a computer wants sound (and I'm not talking about the ever decreasing number of command-line-only junkies either :-). Not supporting sound installation is outragous, especially considering I was one of the few individuals to pay for it. I used to believe that one should occasionally pay for a distro to keep them in business... not after that. Mind you... although they have jumped on the Linux bandwagon, I would have to say that I haven't found a great deal of non-server Linux support from HP either. You would think they would provide drivers for their hardware. Ah well... I guess Linux is also a good buzz word for the BHB's of the world.
So once again, I would say the biggest improvement Suse needs to make is in customer support. I guess I'll try out Fedora, or Gentoo next.
At least a Sears Catalog has more than one useful purpose. It is too hard to wipe your ass with a web page (third paragraph for you who have never been outside the city)... or your monitor. It's an outhouse kind of thing.
As a bonus, just for jrockway, here is something else you might think works better than photoshop. It is pretty crappy for graphics, but you can see the source code. ;-)
In the real world, when your living is on the line, the best tool you can afford is the one you use. Whether you can see the source code or not doesn't even come into the picture. 99.999% of computer users can't do anything with the source code anyway.I am a Canadian who has been living in Missouri (get the name? :-)... I moved from Alberta... I think the provincial premier Ralph (who I think of as 'Ralffff, do I have a drinking problem?') Klein and the federal Alliance party's Alberta members make Bush look left wing. They want to privatize medicare, give Bush style tax cuts to the rich, and have already driven most folks on welfare into British Columbia.
While Linux users do not make up the majority of computer users, I would make a wild ass guess that the majority of Linux users are very probably gamers. To make an even more totally wild ass guess, if we say there are several hundred million computer users out there, and 2% are Linux users, this would make a few million potential gamers to sell to.
Mind you, these same people probably also have Windows boxes, XBoxes, etc. as well. However if commercial interest in selling to Linux users grew, we would probably find more drivers and utilities produced for Linux in order to support the games. After all, it is my humble opinion that games were one of the main drivers of home PC technology for a long time. Granted other new software required more horsepower, but heck, you really needed a monster computer to get the graphics and AI of the new games! :-)
NOTE: I refuse to let facts get in the way of this conversation
On a different tac, I think I had seen almost the same post a long time ago on a different article.
It would seem on the surface that the many customers who do not, or can not pay big money, will have to use Gnome (or another distribution), even though many of them really want KDE. The key info in the article says that if you pay a third party support company (Perens LLC for example) you can have KDE supported. A shame since I was looking forward to a viable alternative to Redhat and Suse.
As was mentioned, if the customer wants it, why is it not supported directly? Is it because it is not lucrative to do so. Call me cynical but maybe it is more profitable to make a product that is almost what the customers want, and then use your consulting company to support the missing pieces? At least that is how it appears to me. If I am wrong, I take it back and apologize. But after all, it looks like Mr. Perens is saying User Linux still does not support KDE. However, the troubling part is that at the same time, while he is one of the chief architects (if not the chief architect) of UserLinux, and is the person responsible for excluding KDE in the first place, he is saying he will support KDE on UserLinux on the side, via his consulting company, for a price. (I think I am making a safe assumption that he will charge a pretty penny for this support.) Hey, we all have to eat, so I guess in the end it's OK for Mr. Perens to do this. But I am a bit cynical of the whole thing too.
Remember, if people don't like the distro because they can't afford the time or money to have a GUI they like installed, then they won't use it. Then it will fail. End of story. Otherwise it will either run or limp along.
For example, word processors. Imagine if the people who made WordStar were able to take out a patent back then on the concept of word processors, or the idea of using an editor to format documents. We either would still be using html-like command tags to do thing like
or we would still be in stone age wysiwyg. I remember those days and am happy they are past. Regardless, there would have been no competition and no incentive for WordPerfect or Microsoft (Word) (and others) to make better word processors. Heck, Open Office (Writer) might not even exist if WordStar had been able to obtain a patent back then. Who would waste time dreaming about working on a project you would get sued for starting?What would happen if other industries used/abused patents in such a way? Imagine if only one pharmaceutical company were allowed to patent the concept of treating cancer or other diseases. Our life expectancies would be 10 or 20 years less. Thank goodness this isn't the case. But hold it, maybe they should be able to patent the idea of taking a pill? Just kidding (for the overly literal minded people), but only just... software patents are like patents on the idea of fighting cancer with chemicals, and many times like the idea of patenting the idea of taking a pill when really, it is the active ingredient (for want of better terminology) of the pill which is patentable.
The idea of patenting concepts like shopping carts, score tallies, ranking, etc. is ridiculous, and will ruin competition and innovation, and hurt the average citizen immensely. Patenting the algorithms and the inner workings I can understand. i.e. If you want to do it, do it, but don't steal my code. JUST DON'T STOP ME FROM BUILDING A BETTER MOUSE TRAP!!
Ya, this might be redundant, but I just had to rant on this one. :-)
I am not sure how they could tie dynamic IP addresses that may be running Linux to the actual user (name, address, etc.), but I am sure if we looked, we could find a way. I would think static IP's would not be much of a challenge, especially if it were tied to a domain name (it would then be a 'no brainer').
But perhaps there is not enough money in the small fry to warrant SCO doing this. And if they try an 'RIAA', maybe if the various defence funds set up by IBM, Redhat, etc. were opened up to help the little guys, then I would think the return on investment (cost of lawyers versus the money they could get from a home user) would be so low as to not be worth while.
Mind you, given that IBM and Redhat, etc. are not likely to expand their net to back home users of Linux, and also given SCO's history, this could happen. Given SCO's history: that unless there is something we are not seeing, they are already going after something with a negative return on their investment: suing IBM without seemingly a leg to stand on.
What about a bunch of people who farted a lot?
I wonder what would happen if you could get some upper management folks to act as apprentices to top level IT folks for a week or two. At best, they might actually learn what is going on with their own IT departments, and how to really help. At worst, they might come down with Stolkholm Syndrome. :-)
I think of this because I used to work in the chemical industry, in a facility that was totally automated. But the systems were initially programmed horribly (I wasn't the programmer). The operators all complained, and the programmer just would say they were lazy. Until upper upper management told him to work on a shift using his own programs for a month. By the end of the second month, the programs to run the plant were so much better.
As they say in Missouri: show me.
Don't take him so literally though (about his grandmother), he is trying to make a point: In order to make it on the desktop, Mr/Mrs. Average Citizen needs to be able to install and/or upgrade things, even as complex as kde, without a hassle. The thing is, Linux is not there yet, but it will be if folks as dedicated as the KDE team seem to be keep doing what they're doing. What will hold it back are the people who get in a huff when people point out the real need to make it easy for the average user.
No-one is taking your command line (and all the power that it has) away from you. vi will always be there. :-) But the great unwashed masses out there would rather things be easy so they can use most of their time using the software, and not configuring it, and certainly not learning to configure it. If it is so complicated they need to study, they won't use it, and the idea of Linux on the desktop will fail. Windows didn't become popular because IT profesionals recommended it. It became popular because the accountants and other business users understood it, used it at home, and wanted their companies to purchase a tool that they could use easily without requiring too much training. Don't get nasty about this, it is true. It is one of the reasons MS makes so much money. It is a system that has a very low learning curve. I think with the great new Linux install packages that come with most of the major distributions (e.g. Suse, Mandrake, Redhat), things are moving that way, and will continue to do so... it's just a matter of time. Rome wan't built in a day (and all that).
My criticism here is (trying to be) constructive criticism... from someone who likes Linux (and has used it for several years) but also is frustrated with sometimes spending more time installing and configuring things than being able to use them (part of the reason is that yes, I am trying things that most desktop users wouldn't need to do). For example, I would like to be able to install the latest version of MySQL (their binary at their advice) without it telling me that an rpm installed on my system is not the right version... causing me to research how to complete the installation. It may be a surprise to some that I would actually like to program something with it, and learn the new features of the latest release, without waiting for a new distro... and not necessarily on how to install it. Same goes for KDE (and I do prefer KDE over other Linux desktops). The MS advantage that people talk about is that you can install a new version of most software without worrying about getting version errors, or errors reporting that your rpm package is not correct... Mind you, I don't like MS's corporate practices so I keep trying to stick to Linux... and it is sometimes a trying experience.
Perhaps if there could be a way for rpm type installs (or others) to check 'levels' instead of just version numbers. If you have a level that supports a set of public API's you could set up a system where even if a different version is out, as long as the standard API's still exist, then all is well. So you could have version 1.0 and version 1.1 both able to meet API level 1. i.e. You might have changed the internal workings of a function (for security or whatever), thus creating a new version (which might tell you if the correct security patch has been applied), but you wouldn't get screwed up on dependancies when installing a package when it looks for the older version of whatever library it needs. It would check the API level, see the correct one, even if the vers
There is an old expression that says "you can't make the weak strong by making the strong weak." I believe it. It is necessary to bring those nations up without bringing ourselves down. Really necessary... poverty has to be tackled for sure. I don't know what the answer is, but we can't give it all away thinking that it is somehow fair. That would be some sort of messed up politically correct arguement.
Some folks argue that we let the blue collar jobs go overseas, so who cares about the tech workers? I can say most autoworkers are not stupid, but I haven't heard of many coming up with something that changes society... except maybe Henry Ford... but he was the only one I've heard of... and that was 100 years ago. Most changes come from exceptional people working with the advanced technology of their time, whether they were university educated or not. Which to me, makes the limited amount of people who are capable and willing to work in the more technical disciplines worth more money.
However, this example sounds like this happened over here, which would have made it relatively easy to communicate what needed correction and why. To follow this through, I think it would follow that it is not the "non-anglo furriner" causes the most difficult problem, but the distance that the "non-anglo furriner" is away from the end user.
Where the real problems come up are when non-trivial problems in the coding come up. Complex problems are increased by orders of magnitude given many thousands of miles of distance, many time zone difference, and significant cultural and language differnces, all rolled together.
I'll stop now because I know these arguments are somewhat redundant. But it is so easy to start ranting on this subject.
:-) or is that :-(
What I think is ironic is that when I was looking at this article asking how people are coping with the knowledge that they can loose their jobs to overseas outsourcing, the banner ad on the page was for improving your outsourcing overseas.
"I think when the latitude and the resolution of digital improve, then we could ask the same question, and maybe get a positive answer."
to:
When it is convenient enough, and affordable enough to get the latitude and resolution of 8 x 10's, then maybe yes, he would use it. :-)
I am assuming there the box you use isn't a standard home PC... but maybe it can be done now. I still have a slight doubt about latitude, but I'll go for it. :-)
The problem I would think you as an astronomer might have is that on film, the grains/pixels aren't as orderly as a digital image would be. Therefore it is harder to store the data in a format easy enough to store and retrieve consistantly. But then again, that is what makes a photographic print so nice to look at (I think). It is that 'something' inherent in the medium that makes the product unique, and in the end, 'art'.
Anyway, I would say that it isn't that digital photographs give you more information... I CAN argue that! What you are talking about is the storage medium for data collected, and a storage medium can't give you any more information than exists already. I would say digital photography might allow you to store the information in a format that may be retrieved, analyzed, and then stored again, much more easily... and more conveniently to boot.
However hydrofluoric acid is one of the only (if not the only) inorganic acid requiring an antidote if it contacts your skin... not just neutralization or dilution. HF will scavenge calcium from your system and can cause hypocalcemia, which is can be life threatening. Basically, if severe enough e.g. from a large HF burn, it can scavenge enough calcium to cause nerve ends requiring calcium to reset, to just stop firing. So bad things can happen, like your heart stopping. Other delitereous effects can also result. HF is very very dangerous. But yes, once reacted into one of its salts, it should be much reduced in danger.
The main reasons:
Latitude
According to Adams, black and white film can be said to have 10 stops of latitude from complete shadow to white. CCD's only capture at best 5 stops. Colour positive (slide film) is better than digital, and positive has far less latitude than black and white film. Therefore the tonality will be inferior with digital as compared to black and white film. As well, with reduced latitude there is less of an ability to manipulate the image.
Resolution
Adams shot on an 8 x 10 camera. That is, the negative was 8 inches by 10 inches. There will be nothing digital in the near future with this resolution that can be carried by the photographer. (as a guess, you would need at least a 600 megapixel digital camera to match the resolution of Adams' 8 X 10 photos).
Additionally, people are trying to make the argument that because Adams liked to manipulate he might like digital. However, he liked to make sure the image he took was exposed correctly from the beginning and and the negative produced correctly so that it was ready for the end image he had in mind. In other words, taking any picture and manipulating it to get the end result he wanted was not what he did. The entire image that he would produce was planned from concept to framed image on a gallery wall. His manipulation started with the time of day, the time of year, etc when the image was captured, to knowing from the outset what chemicals he would use to process the negative(s) etc. He made sure the lighting he wanted was there... all of that. He has stated that making a fine print from an inferior negative is sometimes possible, but success if more likely from a good negative. And getting a good negative started before even putting the camera on the tripod. It has been documented that he would look at a scene as he passed by and make plans on how to shoot it to get the result he wanted. Only when conditions and his plans came together would he shoot. It seems to me that he was more methodical than even his photograph and darkroom techniques indicate.
The problem I have with digital is less with the medium than with the laziness it breeds in the photographers that use it. (Kind of like with programming and VB... nothing wrong with VB, I think, except that due to its initial ease of use, it can breed poor programming habbits... not the languages fault, it is the users fault... but that is off topic!) Many think that they can shoot any way they want, and then can put the missing elements in the final result, whether it be lighting or whatever. The thing is, you cannot put into the image what isn't there to begin with. I think if one takes care to compose the image with the kind of care you would take with film, digital is fine. And if the image is captured well, then the digital manipulations that you follow with, can really be something to look at.
Anyway, I think when the latitude and the resolution of digital improve, then we could ask the same question, and maybe get a positive answer. In the meantime, digital is still good for colour photos used in magazines and vacations. But I still think a good medium (or even 35mm) format film camera in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing, will outperform digital at least in the near term.
The transvestites on Springer look better than the *real* women on Springer. [shudder}
Could be... but you did say better service. But your point is still valid, including the fact that if the gov chips in, maybe it helps the infrastructure.
What I don't understand, and I should have brought it up earlier, is that in Canada, average DSL costs are around $35 to $40. And that is Canadian dollars. So make it around $30 U.S. And the service is not government subsidized. But there might be some tax breaks for the telcos to beef up the infrastructure. Mainly because the feds do want all Canadians to have good access to high speed internet. Some tax breaks, but the feds definately do not have a hand in implementing.
I think in the U.S. it is just "charge what the market will bear" capitalism. Which means either there isn't enough competition, or there is collusion between the companies to keep the prices high. I get DHL from a small company that runs on SBC lines, and they offer their product for around US$40 per month (including a static IP), and no (ah sayed NOOO) contract. Meanwhile SBC charges 50 bucks a month after their sucker deal expires after 4 months.
Makes you go hmmmmmmm?... :-/