Where did this common wisdom come from that SUVs are environmentally unfriendly? I have yet to see any statistics that show that they are.
SUVs replaced large custom vans, which in their time replaced large station wagons. There could be statistics showing that a Honda CRV is worse for the environment than a Dodge Caravan, but I haven't seen them. Someone have a link for me?
SUVs are merely the current solution for large families with kids in lots of after school activities. Do you use an SUV to drive Junior to soccer, Missy to dance recital, and yourself to the grocers, or do you take three trips in a Prius to perform the same errands?
I don't need an SUV, because I'm a single guy. And most people driving around in Hummers all alone probably don't need them either. But if an SUV allows people to carpool more effectively, I'm all for them. Of course, I don't have any statistics that SUVs are worse for the environment than large vans or multiple trips in tiny four bangers. So if I'm wrong, please send me the statistics.
And the funny hting is, the Japanese cars are built in the US, and the US cars are built anywhere else. The moral of the story is that if you want safetly, reliability and performance, buy a car built in the US...
Re:Embed Linux? It's not an ideal choice.
on
How to Embed Linux
·
· Score: 1
Blame Microsoft. I still haven't figured out what makes Windows XP Embedded and embedded operating system, but that doesn't stop the PHBs at my company from mandating it for our formerly hard realtime embedded devices.
Humans unite (that's the truly unbelieveable part of these movies).
What's so unbelievable about that? If England and France could unite against Nazi Germany... Oh wait, France surrendered prematurely. Let me start again. If the US and Soviet Union could unite against Nazi Germany, then why not? The human race would indeed unite against an extraterrestrial invasion. But what the movies leave out is the inevitable cold war that follows after we parcel out pieces of Epsilon Eridani to the victors...
Every Windows systems I see around me either has an administrator who forbids user installation of software, or the user is their own administrator who knows the administrator password, or they never bothered created a user account and always log in as administrator. Is your argument really a problem in the real world?
Of course we will never get a perfect installation system, but that's no reason not to choose the currently better method of package management over the Windows method of install wizards.
You're right, and that's the number one reason why Java is not written in C. Oh wait...
Re:Embed Linux? It's not an ideal choice.
on
How to Embed Linux
·
· Score: 1
Embedded != Realtime
While most realtime systems are embedded systems, many embedded systems are not realtime systems. Your PDA is an embedded device, but it is not a realtime device.
Besides paying for the privilege to see dupe stories in advance, are there any other advantages to a Slashdot subscription? Because frankly I can think of better things to do with my money.
Then level your complaint at the wifi manufacturer. I realize it's a pain in the butt, but you must understand that open source developers do not have the option of coercing drivers out of manufacturers.
Just last week I purchased a new automobile. I used to drive a '96 Plymouth Neon. I now have a '04 Honda Civic. This gave me a first hand immediate look at user interfaces. It has been common but erroneous knowledge that automobiles have standardized user interfaces. But experience suggests otherwise.
This morning I went to fill up the gas tank for the very first time, and immediately made the mistake of pulling up to the pump on the wrong side. I now have to get used to a gas inlet on the left side of the car. That's just user inteface difference number one.
The automatic shift has "P R N D D3 D2" instead of "P R N D 2 1". Radio/clock controls are completely different. I've got a CD player instead of tape player. Windshield wipers are just barely different enough to enusre a low level of confusion. I have to use a key to unlock the back seats for trunk access. I could go on and on and on. Oh, here's the biggie: handling and suspension and different.
But the main point is that I got used to it. So does everyone. Some people will stick with one brand of automobile for a lifetime, but it won't be because they're afraid of learning a new interface.
Perhaps it's not necessary to make Linux an exact clone of Windows before people will start using it. Perhaps, just perhaps, people are using it already!
But it's still not possible for Joe User to simply download an app and install it via an installation wizard like everyone is used to on Windows.
We don't have InstallShield style installers because we don't need them. We have package mangers instead, and in most distros they're fully graphical. In a package manager you double click on a package and you're done. With an InstallShield wizard it typically goes: click, click, click on "yes I've read your threatening EULA, click, click, click on "default options", click, click, click, and finally click on "yes you can reboot my system".
But don't take my word for it, here's your homework assignment: install KDevelop on a working SuSE system, then install Visual Studio (any version) on a working Windows XP system. Compare the number of clicks and choices you had to make for each one.
Is it me, or have PHBs and their secretaries gotten dumber in direct proportion to the amount of GUI-ness on their workstations? I remember when those people used 123 and WP51 under DOS with ease. Heck I remember when CPM was king of the desktop (back when "desktop" meant a computer that could fit on top of your desk). How come the same people who used to have no problem juggling autoexec.bat to squeeze out another 4k of RAM, now freak when confronted with "apt-get", "emerge" or "make install"?
Of course, I know the answer, and so do you. It's the same answer that explains why typing "ipconfig" in Windows is perceived to be several magnitudes of ease friendlier than typing "ifconfig" in Linux...
Myth 1: Have you shown your mom a real newbie oriented distro. I don't mean Fedora or SuSE or Mandrake. But stuff like Xandros or Lindows. I've done a Xandros install and it's far easier than Windows.
Myth 2: While everyone has a one or two "must have" applications that open source provides poorly, or not at all, most of what you need is provided. Of course many of them have absolutely crappy interfaces, but I've found the same to be true for most Windows shareware applications.
Myth 3: Where do I click to uninstall an application in Windows? This is not immediately obvious. It's not on the main desktop. It's not in the main start menu. Odds are it won't even be in the application's submenu on the start menu. One has to open up the control panel to find something called "add/remove programs". Depending on the distro, this may be easier. But it is still a far cry from intuitive.
Operating systems are incredibly complex beasts. Even Windows. Yes it's true, even Windows is complex. But if you think back to the first time you used Windows, you didn't know all of the hundreds or thousands of things about it that you do now. Odds are you had it preinstalled, and had a few friends, relatives or neighbors who had it you could ask if you had a problem.
If you're waiting for Linux to be a relatively faithful clone of Windows, then you're going to be waiting a hell of a long time. By all accounts Mac OSX is much easier than Windows, but you would STILL have to learn hundreds of new things if you ever made that switch.
We're almost there, but don't push it until it's ready...
If no one ever "pushed" Linux then no one would be using it now, and no one around to get it up to the level your mother needs.
If it's your mom, and she's technically clueless, then of course give her the OS designed for technically clueless people. That should be obvious. But "desktop ready" is not synonymous with "anyone can use it". Technically proficient people use the desktop too. Really! For true! Maybe they might want to try out Linux/BSD/Unix without having to wait for it to get to the one-click-does-everything level your mom demands.
The problem with Linux graphical installers is that they all want to be 1024x768x32 resolution, to show off their nice high color logos on a purple and green color scheme. From the instant it boots. Windows starts with a boring text mode installer (really!) and then switches over to a lo-res lo-color graphics mode.
Linux had a working graphical install three years ago, but it wasn't good enough as every distro wanted their own differentiator. My opinion is that if you can't do a graphical install correctly, stick with the text mode installer until you get it working. Far fewer people will walk away from a text mode installer than those that will walk away from a crash or hang.
Because universities are not the real world. They're call the "ivory towers" for a reason. The intelligentsia (aka, cloistered academic) have always held leftist viewpoints.
It doesn't matter how much code Miguel writes. What matters is if it the right code. It probably is the right code for Microsoft, because imitation is still the sincerest form of flattery. But I am still not convinced that it's the right code for Unix. Microsoft may have the vast majority of desktops, but Mono will do nothing about that, because those desktops will still be Windows, and they'll still be running.NET code.
Because he was raised, trained, fostered and imprinted at Microsoft. Yes, he is an ex-Microsoft employee. People seem to forget this. His vision for you is Microsoft technology in all its "glory", but without the Microsoft name behind it.
For me, I can't wait for Java to get open sourced, or parrot to be finished. Both look likely within the next year.
Yes. But face it:.NET apps are being written. People are using it.
And people are also using Windows, eating McDonald's hamburgers, and driving Fords. That doesn't mean that I have to as well.
There is a need for Mono, simply because there will always be stupid ass PHBs who believe the Microsoft promises. But we don't have to drink the Microsoft Kool-Aid.
Rip on Miguel as you like, but recall, this is a man that wants the linux desktop to prosper, regardless of what fanboy, ub3r wannabies latch on.
Praise Miguel as much as you like, but recall that this is a man who once worked within the cloistered walls of Microsoft. That was where he was trained, nurtured and imprinted.
Re:No more Kernel Panic and Linux Thinking
on
Moving To Linux
·
· Score: 1
Just because you say a belief or a lie often, does not make it eventually become truth.
Just because you say 2K/XP kernel crashes (aka BSOD) do not occur, does not make them vanish in a puff of metaphysical smoke. They are certainly a magnitude less common than under 9x/ME, but they still occur.
As I mentioned elsewhere, the cause of this is probably attributed to the habits of the average user, who is installing shit willy nilly. As for myself I have never experienced it on my own system, even with the notorious WinME (really), but that's because I rarely install stuff, and immediately uninstall it when I'm finished with it. But I have seen BSOD's happen to other people. To say that all crashes are the fault of the user, is obnoxiously rude.
Of course, I am not a certified Microsoft shill, so what the fuck do I know? I apologize for challenging your world view.
Re:Media IS liberal SOCIALLY, NOT ECONOMICALLY
on
We the Media
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'm pissed that the media isn't reporting objectively. Of course, if they did report objectively, they wouldn't be parroting the Chomsky line. I want objectivity, not just another opinion. For example, to report flat or sales taxes as "regressive" would be anything but objective.
I am not saying your biases are invalid, just that I don't want them, or any other biases, in my news coverage. For example, when the WTO meets, the reporting should be more than a mere "the WTO met today, now on to sports". But neither should it be "the WTO is evil and here's why..."
Slashdot Mirror
That use for duct tape is something you only do once. Take it from me, you won't have the cojones to do it a second time...
Where did this common wisdom come from that SUVs are environmentally unfriendly? I have yet to see any statistics that show that they are.
SUVs replaced large custom vans, which in their time replaced large station wagons. There could be statistics showing that a Honda CRV is worse for the environment than a Dodge Caravan, but I haven't seen them. Someone have a link for me?
SUVs are merely the current solution for large families with kids in lots of after school activities. Do you use an SUV to drive Junior to soccer, Missy to dance recital, and yourself to the grocers, or do you take three trips in a Prius to perform the same errands?
I don't need an SUV, because I'm a single guy. And most people driving around in Hummers all alone probably don't need them either. But if an SUV allows people to carpool more effectively, I'm all for them. Of course, I don't have any statistics that SUVs are worse for the environment than large vans or multiple trips in tiny four bangers. So if I'm wrong, please send me the statistics.
And the funny hting is, the Japanese cars are built in the US, and the US cars are built anywhere else. The moral of the story is that if you want safetly, reliability and performance, buy a car built in the US...
Blame Microsoft. I still haven't figured out what makes Windows XP Embedded and embedded operating system, but that doesn't stop the PHBs at my company from mandating it for our formerly hard realtime embedded devices.
Humans unite (that's the truly unbelieveable part of these movies).
What's so unbelievable about that? If England and France could unite against Nazi Germany... Oh wait, France surrendered prematurely. Let me start again. If the US and Soviet Union could unite against Nazi Germany, then why not? The human race would indeed unite against an extraterrestrial invasion. But what the movies leave out is the inevitable cold war that follows after we parcel out pieces of Epsilon Eridani to the victors...
Every Windows systems I see around me either has an administrator who forbids user installation of software, or the user is their own administrator who knows the administrator password, or they never bothered created a user account and always log in as administrator. Is your argument really a problem in the real world?
Of course we will never get a perfect installation system, but that's no reason not to choose the currently better method of package management over the Windows method of install wizards.
So your argument is that if someone else is living in a cloistered fantasy land, it's okay for you to do the same?
You're right, and that's the number one reason why Java is not written in C. Oh wait...
Embedded != Realtime
While most realtime systems are embedded systems, many embedded systems are not realtime systems. Your PDA is an embedded device, but it is not a realtime device.
Besides paying for the privilege to see dupe stories in advance, are there any other advantages to a Slashdot subscription? Because frankly I can think of better things to do with my money.
Then level your complaint at the wifi manufacturer. I realize it's a pain in the butt, but you must understand that open source developers do not have the option of coercing drivers out of manufacturers.
Just last week I purchased a new automobile. I used to drive a '96 Plymouth Neon. I now have a '04 Honda Civic. This gave me a first hand immediate look at user interfaces. It has been common but erroneous knowledge that automobiles have standardized user interfaces. But experience suggests otherwise.
This morning I went to fill up the gas tank for the very first time, and immediately made the mistake of pulling up to the pump on the wrong side. I now have to get used to a gas inlet on the left side of the car. That's just user inteface difference number one.
The automatic shift has "P R N D D3 D2" instead of "P R N D 2 1". Radio/clock controls are completely different. I've got a CD player instead of tape player. Windshield wipers are just barely different enough to enusre a low level of confusion. I have to use a key to unlock the back seats for trunk access. I could go on and on and on. Oh, here's the biggie: handling and suspension and different.
But the main point is that I got used to it. So does everyone. Some people will stick with one brand of automobile for a lifetime, but it won't be because they're afraid of learning a new interface.
Perhaps it's not necessary to make Linux an exact clone of Windows before people will start using it. Perhaps, just perhaps, people are using it already!
But it's still not possible for Joe User to simply download an app and install it via an installation wizard like everyone is used to on Windows.
We don't have InstallShield style installers because we don't need them. We have package mangers instead, and in most distros they're fully graphical. In a package manager you double click on a package and you're done. With an InstallShield wizard it typically goes: click, click, click on "yes I've read your threatening EULA, click, click, click on "default options", click, click, click, and finally click on "yes you can reboot my system".
But don't take my word for it, here's your homework assignment: install KDevelop on a working SuSE system, then install Visual Studio (any version) on a working Windows XP system. Compare the number of clicks and choices you had to make for each one.
Is it me, or have PHBs and their secretaries gotten dumber in direct proportion to the amount of GUI-ness on their workstations? I remember when those people used 123 and WP51 under DOS with ease. Heck I remember when CPM was king of the desktop (back when "desktop" meant a computer that could fit on top of your desk). How come the same people who used to have no problem juggling autoexec.bat to squeeze out another 4k of RAM, now freak when confronted with "apt-get", "emerge" or "make install"?
Of course, I know the answer, and so do you. It's the same answer that explains why typing "ipconfig" in Windows is perceived to be several magnitudes of ease friendlier than typing "ifconfig" in Linux...
Myth 1: Have you shown your mom a real newbie oriented distro. I don't mean Fedora or SuSE or Mandrake. But stuff like Xandros or Lindows. I've done a Xandros install and it's far easier than Windows.
Myth 2: While everyone has a one or two "must have" applications that open source provides poorly, or not at all, most of what you need is provided. Of course many of them have absolutely crappy interfaces, but I've found the same to be true for most Windows shareware applications.
Myth 3: Where do I click to uninstall an application in Windows? This is not immediately obvious. It's not on the main desktop. It's not in the main start menu. Odds are it won't even be in the application's submenu on the start menu. One has to open up the control panel to find something called "add/remove programs". Depending on the distro, this may be easier. But it is still a far cry from intuitive.
Operating systems are incredibly complex beasts. Even Windows. Yes it's true, even Windows is complex. But if you think back to the first time you used Windows, you didn't know all of the hundreds or thousands of things about it that you do now. Odds are you had it preinstalled, and had a few friends, relatives or neighbors who had it you could ask if you had a problem.
If you're waiting for Linux to be a relatively faithful clone of Windows, then you're going to be waiting a hell of a long time. By all accounts Mac OSX is much easier than Windows, but you would STILL have to learn hundreds of new things if you ever made that switch.
We're almost there, but don't push it until it's ready...
If no one ever "pushed" Linux then no one would be using it now, and no one around to get it up to the level your mother needs.
If it's your mom, and she's technically clueless, then of course give her the OS designed for technically clueless people. That should be obvious. But "desktop ready" is not synonymous with "anyone can use it". Technically proficient people use the desktop too. Really! For true! Maybe they might want to try out Linux/BSD/Unix without having to wait for it to get to the one-click-does-everything level your mom demands.
The problem with Linux graphical installers is that they all want to be 1024x768x32 resolution, to show off their nice high color logos on a purple and green color scheme. From the instant it boots. Windows starts with a boring text mode installer (really!) and then switches over to a lo-res lo-color graphics mode.
Linux had a working graphical install three years ago, but it wasn't good enough as every distro wanted their own differentiator. My opinion is that if you can't do a graphical install correctly, stick with the text mode installer until you get it working. Far fewer people will walk away from a text mode installer than those that will walk away from a crash or hang.
Because universities are not the real world. They're call the "ivory towers" for a reason. The intelligentsia (aka, cloistered academic) have always held leftist viewpoints.
It doesn't matter how much code Miguel writes. What matters is if it the right code. It probably is the right code for Microsoft, because imitation is still the sincerest form of flattery. But I am still not convinced that it's the right code for Unix. Microsoft may have the vast majority of desktops, but Mono will do nothing about that, because those desktops will still be Windows, and they'll still be running .NET code.
Because he was raised, trained, fostered and imprinted at Microsoft. Yes, he is an ex-Microsoft employee. People seem to forget this. His vision for you is Microsoft technology in all its "glory", but without the Microsoft name behind it.
For me, I can't wait for Java to get open sourced, or parrot to be finished. Both look likely within the next year.
Yes. But face it: .NET apps are being written. People are using it.
And people are also using Windows, eating McDonald's hamburgers, and driving Fords. That doesn't mean that I have to as well.
There is a need for Mono, simply because there will always be stupid ass PHBs who believe the Microsoft promises. But we don't have to drink the Microsoft Kool-Aid.
Rip on Miguel as you like, but recall, this is a man that wants the linux desktop to prosper, regardless of what fanboy, ub3r wannabies latch on.
Praise Miguel as much as you like, but recall that this is a man who once worked within the cloistered walls of Microsoft. That was where he was trained, nurtured and imprinted.
Just because you say a belief or a lie often, does not make it eventually become truth.
Just because you say 2K/XP kernel crashes (aka BSOD) do not occur, does not make them vanish in a puff of metaphysical smoke. They are certainly a magnitude less common than under 9x/ME, but they still occur.
As I mentioned elsewhere, the cause of this is probably attributed to the habits of the average user, who is installing shit willy nilly. As for myself I have never experienced it on my own system, even with the notorious WinME (really), but that's because I rarely install stuff, and immediately uninstall it when I'm finished with it. But I have seen BSOD's happen to other people. To say that all crashes are the fault of the user, is obnoxiously rude.
Of course, I am not a certified Microsoft shill, so what the fuck do I know? I apologize for challenging your world view.
I'm pissed that the media isn't reporting objectively. Of course, if they did report objectively, they wouldn't be parroting the Chomsky line. I want objectivity, not just another opinion. For example, to report flat or sales taxes as "regressive" would be anything but objective.
I am not saying your biases are invalid, just that I don't want them, or any other biases, in my news coverage. For example, when the WTO meets, the reporting should be more than a mere "the WTO met today, now on to sports". But neither should it be "the WTO is evil and here's why..."