The reason you think I'm "moving the goalpost" is because you have repeated failed to understand what I've said in your haste to respond with some hateful nonsense.
If you quit assuming things and took the time to read and think about all of my comment, I think you'd find you've been rather silly.
You're simply looking at things through rose tinted glasses.
Tor was created and paid for by the US government, not some altruistic group of hackers.
From Wikipedia: "Originally sponsored by the US Naval Research Laboratory,[8] Tor was financially supported by the Electronic Frontier Foundation from 2004 to 2005.[10] Tor software is now developed by the Tor Project, which has been a 501(c)(3) research/education nonprofit organization[11] based in the United States of America[1] since December 2006 and receives a diverse base of financial support;[10] the U.S. State Department, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, and the National Science Foundation are major contributors"
Mozilla is paid for by corporate sponsorship:
"The Mozilla Foundation accepts donations as a source of funding. Along with AOL's initial $2 million donation, Mitch Kapor gave $300,000 to the organization at its launch. The group has tax-exempt status under IRC 501(c)(3) of the U.S. tax code, though the Mozilla Corporation subsidiary is taxable. In 2006, the Mozilla Foundation received $66.8 million in revenues, of which $61.5 million is attributed to "search royalties".[9] The foundation has an ongoing deal with Google to make Google search the default in the Firefox browser search bar and hence send it search referrals; a Firefox themed Google search site has also been made the default home page of Firefox. The contract originally expired in November 2006. However Google renewed the contract until November 2008 and again through 2011.[10] On 20 December 2011 Mozilla announced that the contract was once again renewed for at least three years to November 2014, at 3 times the amount previously paid, or nearly $300 million annually.[11][12] Approximately 85% of Mozilla’s revenue for 2006 was derived from this contract. This amounts to approximately US$56.8 million.[9]"
And now you know the truth about FOSS. It's only "user friendly" when someone pays for it to be, and in those cases there are pretty obvious motivations that have nothing to do with "the greater good". Sure, somebody might give away a little plugin because it just isn't worth the time and effort to commercialize it. But when you try to find examples of serious FOSS that's user friendly, you will find big money , not altruism, behind each one. Most individual hackers (the force behind the 99% of FOSS you did not mention) simply don't have the resources, time, or any inclination to make things easy.
You mention "thriving" but seem to believe success == lots of users. Tor and Mozilla "thrive" because they maintain lots of income. Money, money, money. The number of users is in some ways key to maintaining the money, but it isn't a direct measurement of "thriving". Tor was paid for and created before there was a single user. Mozilla Foundation was spun off with millions in funding before they had any product. These are extremely uncommon anomalies in the FOSS world, not examples of the typical scenario.
Really as a programmer I think that of your releasing code out to be used by the average joe, it should just work.
This is the point, exactly. Most FOSS is never intended to released to "the average joe", at least not by it's designers. It doesn't belong on a computer belonging to an average joe. It is "enthusiasts" who try to install it on every machine they are allowed to touch that create problems, not the software. Add to that some overly optimistic distributions.
It's nice that you have some requirements that every programmer should have to fulfill, but isn't FOSS about freedom?
FOSS as some great humanitarian effort does not exist. You have basically two group in the FOSS world. The first is the developers, hackers and generally clueful folks who create and use foss because of the great power and flexibility it provides. The second is people who use it because they don't have to pay for it. Sure, there are some fringe cases, but those two groups make up the massive majority.
Most (if not all?) FOSS was created without any virtuous goal in mind. It is a creative expression in itself, and for the most part the only reward to the developer is the enjoyment of seeing his creation complete, using it to solve his own problems, and maybe now and then getting some useful contribution from someone else. Frankly, adapting FOSS into some kind of charity for creative but unskilled computer operators is a mutation of its goal and purpose, and I doubt such an effort would be very successful.
I mostly agree. What I don't get is.. what opportunity is this lack of interest in making a friendly environment causing us to miss? How does FOSS get any better just because a lot of people who can't contribute anything back are using it? FOSS grows when skilled users contribute back to the project. In the classic "grandma" scenario... what do I get from Grandma if she runs my FOSS? It's evident that there is little interest from the FOSS community, and I frankly think the reason is both obvious and logical. Honestly, is there really anything wrong with the way things are?
if you wanted a plant, you shouldn't be playing in the garden. the best advice a gardener could give you is to get out and go to the corner shop.
whether you like it or not, my "philosophy" is truth. skilled hackers aren't working on making installing software or linux in general "easy" for the simple reason that it's already easy for them. your ideal world where anyone who writes oss cares about your grandma is a fallacy.
If you wanted to garden and an experienced gardener suggested you learn how to plant seeds, till the earth, and whatnot, would you call him an ignorant twit? And if you have no desire to learn these things, would you feel that the gardeners of the world owed you some sort of easier way to participate?
Let me preface this by saying I am not trying to be mean or disrespectful in any way. I'm probably assuming things about you that aren't true, yadda yadda. Mostly I think you're a great example of why Linux is not appropriate for "the Desktop" if that means "anybody that feels like using it", and probably never will be.
The topic you complain of (complexity of installing software) is a topic that can be mastered in very little time. Gaining a working understanding the linux filesystem, paths, editing config files, and basic use of make would take the average person only a few hours of study. Add the ability to copy/paste messages into google and follow instructions, and installing software simply will not be a difficult task any more.
However, instead of learning how to do these things, you'd prefer that someone develop some amazing automated installation system that Just Works. I can understand the appeal, but I just don't see any motivation for anyone to create such a thing.
Most open source software exists because some capable person needed or wanted or was just interested in something and decided to make it. They may add on requested features, others may join the project and extend it far beyond the original scope, but at the core there was that original personal desire.
I think it's logical to believe that most people who are skilled enough to write software of the complexity required for a "universal magic just works installer" have very little need for such a thing. Installing software simply isn't a challenging task. It's tedious, sure, but not particularly interesting. The number of open source hackers who would volunteer a massive chunk of their time so that the "average guy" doesn't have to spend a couple hours learning is just not very high.
If it's "all about the kernel", then why would you include OS X (which does not use a linux kernel) with the things we call "Linux", which do? here's a thought: educate yourself on a topic before speaking about it.
"Begley's thinking about whether he'd have a better shot making the same point in the Android Market.'"
He'd be allowed to try. Considering there are considerably more Android users than iThing users, he'd also have a bigger impact if his app was popular.
Freedom: it's not really so bad, despite what Apple would have you believe.
I know I’m not going to be the first person to ask this, but if I understand it the plan here was:
1 - buy lots of hardware and install 2 - think about what kind of software it will run and how it will be used
I think you got your methodology swapped around man!
Why is documentation for *nix always so bad?
You are looking for information that your average user won’t care about. Things like boot time don’t get documented because your average user isn’t going to have some arbitrary requirement to have their _file server_ boot in 30 seconds. That’s a very weird use case. Normally you reboot a file server infrequently (unless you want to be swapping disks out constantly..). I’m assuming this requirement is because you plan on doing a full shutdown to insert your drives... in which case you really should be looking into hotswap
Also mandatory: you sound horribly underqualified for the job you are doing. Fess up before you waste even more (I assume grant) money and bring in someone that knows what the hell they are doing.
Wow.. I completely agree with an AC.
The OP here is in way over his head and the entire project seems to have been planned by idiots.
yes thats with 2 year contract, and not being tied to a contract can be a bonus in some situations. otoh you have to have service anyway and most carriers don't give a discount for bringing your own device, so in reality it often saves the typical person exactly $0. On top of that, what are the realistic chances a 3.5 year old phone with difficult to replace battery is going to last 2 more years without additional expense.
Unless I'm missing something, it sounds like you probably sold your friend a worn out 3.5 year old (and 3 generations behind current) iphone for more than the cost of a brand new one only one generation behind. Doesn't seem like a very good deal.
Look, we all know that this is the "Post-PC" world. Microsoft is simply adjusting to it.
PC users should find Win 8 actively killing their desire to use a PC at all. This is for your own good! In our new post PC world, all who continue to use PCs like they are PCs will only find heartache and disaster.
Why would Microsoft or anyone care what some old PC guy has to say. So Win 8 is not "user friendly". He means it's not *PC* user friendly, and by god it shouldn't be! The PC no longer matters. We are in the Post PC world, why can't everybody see this?
Frankly I can't see why Microsoft is releasing an operating system for the dead and buried PC platform anyway.
however the premise says nothing of any experience beyond being "someone related to one of the first graphical interfaces for computers".
that alone does not qualify a person to be an authority on modern GUI design by any measure I can reason, yet the article seems to be asserting that it's qualification enough to have a damning opinion.
"Come to think of it, why do we care what those damned obsolete "founding father" jackasses had to say about our Constitution, either?"
I wasn't aware the modern government did care what those old guys had to say. Regardless, you miss the point. Would you really assume one of our founding fathers to have useful input on a modern scenario *simply because he was around during the creation of the government* ? So much so that a statement like "You know your proposed patent reform bill is in trouble when James Madison doesn't like it" would be a given?
"You know you've messed up big time when someone related to the development of one of the first graphical interfaces for computers thinks you've messed up"
Regardless of whether MS has screwed the pooch with Windows 8, I don't think this claim is worth a shit. being related to the development of the first instance of something makes you a defacto authority on modern incarnations? especially in the technology sector this smells like BS. would the wright brothers be expected to provide valuable input on the latest stealth bomber?
"best of the best" might have been a stretch, regardless you did a generally dangerous thing that probably helps make my life better, as far as I can tell. It's all a bit murky but that certainly puts you a world ahead of the iPeople in my book and I thank you for your service.
the arduous hiring process is actually part of the new employee's conditioning, not really a screening mechanism at all. making them feel like the accomplished something simply by being hired is an important early step in the corporate mandated mental manipulation. notice the quote in the article from the disgruntled employee:
"...statistically speaking, it's harder to get a job at the Apple Store than it is to get into some Ivy League schools," he says
This isn't something he just came up with. It's a "fact" he was taught during the indoctrination process, designed to make the iPeons feel like they are somehow special for obtaining a low paying position in retail.
as you pointed out, it's largely ineffective at preventing crappy people from being hired, but that's not what its about.
OK, I can believe the management is a bit corrupt, but are you seriously trying to tell me a bunch of hipsters barely making minimum wage goofed off and stole from their employer??
I care about my time far too much to spend much effort on such trivial matters.
If spending time thinking about/taking steps to categorize and block sites brings you some pleasure in itself, fine. Otherwise the fact that you seem to have nothing more important to worry about may be a problem needing more urgent attention.
Slashdot Mirror
This, quite literally if Apple succeeds, is why we can't have nice things.
Exactly my point. Linux doesn't belong on the desktops of the masses, and it probably never will. And that is OK.
The only problem is people trying to make Linux be something it is not.
The reason you think I'm "moving the goalpost" is because you have repeated failed to understand what I've said in your haste to respond with some hateful nonsense.
If you quit assuming things and took the time to read and think about all of my comment, I think you'd find you've been rather silly.
You're simply looking at things through rose tinted glasses.
Tor was created and paid for by the US government, not some altruistic group of hackers.
From Wikipedia:
"Originally sponsored by the US Naval Research Laboratory,[8] Tor was financially supported by the Electronic Frontier Foundation from 2004 to 2005.[10] Tor software is now developed by the Tor Project, which has been a 501(c)(3) research/education nonprofit organization[11] based in the United States of America[1] since December 2006 and receives a diverse base of financial support;[10] the U.S. State Department, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, and the National Science Foundation are major contributors"
Mozilla is paid for by corporate sponsorship:
"The Mozilla Foundation accepts donations as a source of funding. Along with AOL's initial $2 million donation, Mitch Kapor gave $300,000 to the organization at its launch. The group has tax-exempt status under IRC 501(c)(3) of the U.S. tax code, though the Mozilla Corporation subsidiary is taxable.
In 2006, the Mozilla Foundation received $66.8 million in revenues, of which $61.5 million is attributed to "search royalties".[9]
The foundation has an ongoing deal with Google to make Google search the default in the Firefox browser search bar and hence send it search referrals; a Firefox themed Google search site has also been made the default home page of Firefox. The contract originally expired in November 2006. However Google renewed the contract until November 2008 and again through 2011.[10] On 20 December 2011 Mozilla announced that the contract was once again renewed for at least three years to November 2014, at 3 times the amount previously paid, or nearly $300 million annually.[11][12] Approximately 85% of Mozilla’s revenue for 2006 was derived from this contract. This amounts to approximately US$56.8 million.[9]"
And now you know the truth about FOSS. It's only "user friendly" when someone pays for it to be, and in those cases there are pretty obvious motivations that have nothing to do with "the greater good". Sure, somebody might give away a little plugin because it just isn't worth the time and effort to commercialize it. But when you try to find examples of serious FOSS that's user friendly, you will find big money , not altruism, behind each one. Most individual hackers (the force behind the 99% of FOSS you did not mention) simply don't have the resources, time, or any inclination to make things easy.
You mention "thriving" but seem to believe success == lots of users. Tor and Mozilla "thrive" because they maintain lots of income. Money, money, money.
The number of users is in some ways key to maintaining the money, but it isn't a direct measurement of "thriving". Tor was paid for and created before there was a single user. Mozilla Foundation was spun off with millions in funding before they had any product. These are extremely uncommon anomalies in the FOSS world, not examples of the typical scenario.
Really as a programmer I think that of your releasing code out to be used by the average joe, it should just work.
This is the point, exactly. Most FOSS is never intended to released to "the average joe", at least not by it's designers. It doesn't belong on a computer belonging to an average joe. It is "enthusiasts" who try to install it on every machine they are allowed to touch that create problems, not the software. Add to that some overly optimistic distributions.
It's nice that you have some requirements that every programmer should have to fulfill, but isn't FOSS about freedom?
FOSS as some great humanitarian effort does not exist. You have basically two group in the FOSS world. The first is the developers, hackers and generally clueful folks who create and use foss because of the great power and flexibility it provides. The second is people who use it because they don't have to pay for it.
Sure, there are some fringe cases, but those two groups make up the massive majority.
Most (if not all?) FOSS was created without any virtuous goal in mind. It is a creative expression in itself, and for the most part the only reward to the developer is the enjoyment of seeing his creation complete, using it to solve his own problems, and maybe now and then getting some useful contribution from someone else. Frankly, adapting FOSS into some kind of charity for creative but unskilled computer operators is a mutation of its goal and purpose, and I doubt such an effort would be very successful.
I mostly agree. What I don't get is.. what opportunity is this lack of interest in making a friendly environment causing us to miss?
How does FOSS get any better just because a lot of people who can't contribute anything back are using it?
FOSS grows when skilled users contribute back to the project. In the classic "grandma" scenario... what do I get from Grandma if she runs my FOSS?
It's evident that there is little interest from the FOSS community, and I frankly think the reason is both obvious and logical. Honestly, is there really anything wrong with the way things are?
if you wanted a plant, you shouldn't be playing in the garden. the best advice a gardener could give you is to get out and go to the corner shop.
whether you like it or not, my "philosophy" is truth. skilled hackers aren't working on making installing software or linux in general "easy" for the simple reason that it's already easy for them. your ideal world where anyone who writes oss cares about your grandma is a fallacy.
If you wanted to garden and an experienced gardener suggested you learn how to plant seeds, till the earth, and whatnot, would you call him an ignorant twit?
And if you have no desire to learn these things, would you feel that the gardeners of the world owed you some sort of easier way to participate?
Let me preface this by saying I am not trying to be mean or disrespectful in any way. I'm probably assuming things about you that aren't true, yadda yadda. Mostly I think you're a great example of why Linux is not appropriate for "the Desktop" if that means "anybody that feels like using it", and probably never will be.
The topic you complain of (complexity of installing software) is a topic that can be mastered in very little time. Gaining a working understanding the linux filesystem, paths, editing config files, and basic use of make would take the average person only a few hours of study. Add the ability to copy/paste messages into google and follow instructions, and installing software simply will not be a difficult task any more.
However, instead of learning how to do these things, you'd prefer that someone develop some amazing automated installation system that Just Works. I can understand the appeal, but I just don't see any motivation for anyone to create such a thing.
Most open source software exists because some capable person needed or wanted or was just interested in something and decided to make it. They may add on requested features, others may join the project and extend it far beyond the original scope, but at the core there was that original personal desire.
I think it's logical to believe that most people who are skilled enough to write software of the complexity required for a "universal magic just works installer" have very little need for such a thing. Installing software simply isn't a challenging task. It's tedious, sure, but not particularly interesting. The number of open source hackers who would volunteer a massive chunk of their time so that the "average guy" doesn't have to spend a couple hours learning is just not very high.
just my $0.02.
There is no argument, you are simply wrong. OS X does not use a Linux kernel.
If it's "all about the kernel", then why would you include OS X (which does not use a linux kernel) with the things we call "Linux", which do?
here's a thought: educate yourself on a topic before speaking about it.
"Begley's thinking about whether he'd have a better shot making the same point in the Android Market.'"
He'd be allowed to try. Considering there are considerably more Android users than iThing users, he'd also have a bigger impact if his app was popular.
Freedom: it's not really so bad, despite what Apple would have you believe.
The big new "magical" feature in the upcoming iPhone 5 is the ability to track drone strikes.
I know I’m not going to be the first person to ask this, but if I understand it the plan here was:
1 - buy lots of hardware and install
2 - think about what kind of software it will run and how it will be used
I think you got your methodology swapped around man!
Why is documentation for *nix always so bad?
You are looking for information that your average user won’t care about. Things like boot time don’t get documented because your average user isn’t going to have some arbitrary requirement to have their _file server_ boot in 30 seconds. That’s a very weird use case. Normally you reboot a file server infrequently (unless you want to be swapping disks out constantly..). I’m assuming this requirement is because you plan on doing a full shutdown to insert your drives... in which case you really should be looking into hotswap
Also mandatory: you sound horribly underqualified for the job you are doing. Fess up before you waste even more (I assume grant) money and bring in someone that knows what the hell they are doing.
Wow.. I completely agree with an AC.
The OP here is in way over his head and the entire project seems to have been planned by idiots.
This will end badly.
The 3G launched June 9, 2008. If you sold it to your friend 3.5 years later, by my admittedly sketchy math that's december of last year.
I didn't do much research, but its easy to find that the going price for a brand new iphone *4* was $99 in december of last year, and you could get them even cheaper on sale: http://www.iphonehacks.com/2011/12/radioshack-to-offer-30-discount-on-iphone-4s-and-iphone-4-from-sunday-dec-11th-through-dec-17th.html
yes thats with 2 year contract, and not being tied to a contract can be a bonus in some situations. otoh you have to have service anyway and most carriers don't give a discount for bringing your own device, so in reality it often saves the typical person exactly $0. On top of that, what are the realistic chances a 3.5 year old phone with difficult to replace battery is going to last 2 more years without additional expense.
Unless I'm missing something, it sounds like you probably sold your friend a worn out 3.5 year old (and 3 generations behind current) iphone for more than the cost of a brand new one only one generation behind. Doesn't seem like a very good deal.
Look, we all know that this is the "Post-PC" world. Microsoft is simply adjusting to it.
PC users should find Win 8 actively killing their desire to use a PC at all. This is for your own good! In our new post PC world, all who continue to use PCs like they are PCs will only find heartache and disaster.
Why would Microsoft or anyone care what some old PC guy has to say. So Win 8 is not "user friendly". He means it's not *PC* user friendly, and by god it shouldn't be! The PC no longer matters. We are in the Post PC world, why can't everybody see this?
Frankly I can't see why Microsoft is releasing an operating system for the dead and buried PC platform anyway.
sure, if they had then of course.
however the premise says nothing of any experience beyond being "someone related to one of the first graphical interfaces for computers".
that alone does not qualify a person to be an authority on modern GUI design by any measure I can reason, yet the article seems to be asserting that it's qualification enough to have a damning opinion.
"Come to think of it, why do we care what those damned obsolete "founding father" jackasses had to say about our Constitution, either?"
I wasn't aware the modern government did care what those old guys had to say. Regardless, you miss the point. Would you really assume one of our founding fathers to have useful input on a modern scenario *simply because he was around during the creation of the government* ? So much so that a statement like "You know your proposed patent reform bill is in trouble when James Madison doesn't like it" would be a given?
"You know you've messed up big time when someone related to the development of one of the first graphical interfaces for computers thinks you've messed up"
Regardless of whether MS has screwed the pooch with Windows 8, I don't think this claim is worth a shit. being related to the development of the first instance of something makes you a defacto authority on modern incarnations? especially in the technology sector this smells like BS. would the wright brothers be expected to provide valuable input on the latest stealth bomber?
side loading an apk costs $0.00. it is not very difficult to produce something worth $0.00 to 250k people.
what is (marginally) difficult is to create something that
A - is worth paying anything for to a large number of users, and
B - actually gets you paid
you apparently failed to achieve one or more of these requirements.
"best of the best" might have been a stretch, regardless you did a generally dangerous thing that probably helps make my life better, as far as I can tell. It's all a bit murky but that certainly puts you a world ahead of the iPeople in my book and I thank you for your service.
the arduous hiring process is actually part of the new employee's conditioning, not really a screening mechanism at all.
making them feel like the accomplished something simply by being hired is an important early step in the corporate mandated mental manipulation.
notice the quote in the article from the disgruntled employee:
"...statistically speaking, it's harder to get a job at the Apple Store than it is to get into some Ivy League schools," he says
This isn't something he just came up with. It's a "fact" he was taught during the indoctrination process, designed to make the iPeons feel like they are somehow special for obtaining a low paying position in retail.
as you pointed out, it's largely ineffective at preventing crappy people from being hired, but that's not what its about.
OK, I can believe the management is a bit corrupt, but are you seriously trying to tell me a bunch of hipsters barely making minimum wage goofed off and stole from their employer??
this is an outrage!
I care about my time far too much to spend much effort on such trivial matters.
If spending time thinking about/taking steps to categorize and block sites brings you some pleasure in itself, fine.
Otherwise the fact that you seem to have nothing more important to worry about may be a problem needing more urgent attention.