I don't know that this is the first. Funtoo has been around for much longer and is a "real OS" rather than a internet box only OS. I'd be interested in how they think they compare, but I also don't think that people interested in linux in general would find webconverger a useful OS over Funtoo.
The only time I've *ever* clicked on a web banner intentionally, it was a flash banner, and the darn thing didn't work anyway.
And that was..once. In the last...14 years.
I just don't see who is clicking this crap in the first place.
I had this same problem with Comcast for almost 9 months. It drove me crazy. I ended up staying at the University computer science labs almost all the time, and the minute my lease expired, I moved.
I had about 4 different techs in, and they were all extremely competent. The problem wasn't with my house, it was with my neighborhood. The company, however, wasn't willing to dig up all the buried cable and fix it. So it never got fixed.
The comcast techs who came out said they had another tech who lived in the neighborhood who was suffering the same problem. They were trying to convince him to move.
It really stinks trying to do *anything* when you're getting 40-60% packet loss.
Got one of those embedded devices that only has a browser, and no OS?
Now you can run all sorts of programs on that device.
It's cross-platform. And now when Opera comes out for my DS, it can do all these things without any additional software, or memory cards.
That may not have been what they were thinking of when they made these online ajax apps, but it certainly works as such.
I bought an ipod photo this week, and had it working that night with gtkpod in linux. Not a problem. Why would I want iTunes?
I nearly went with a Creative for the ease of use in linux, bigger hard drive for cheaper, etc. But I couldn't resist the shiny. Oops.
I believe this is totally off base. *Hackers* tend to spell things correctly, and generally have an excellent sense of the English language, as explained by the jargon file. *Script kiddies*, however, are clearly guilty of the charges you laid out. They are yet young and foolish, though they may learn. But do not apply this to hackers, as they might feel inclined to respond and leave you long exacting diatribes in return.
Haha. Except when you're a UNIX god. Then you get to ride the forefront of the fame train. And, people's boxes just run better, so they're happier.
*Grin*
"a calm simple place were the girls could all be princesses and have fun"
The thing that bothers me about allowing this sort of thing is that it reinforces the notion that women should stay at home and take care of the babies while the husband goes off to work and takes care of them. Granted, there's nothing wrong with staying home and taking care of babies if that's what you want to do, but lots of women might be a lot happier designing airplanes, or writing code for the next version of linux. Allowing this sort of Barbie/Ken stereotype to continue makes me so sad.
I realize it's hard to encourage your daughter to think out of the box when she lives in a world where she's told she's a little princess, and everything will be just dandy if she trusts her prince, but it really doesn't serve her in the long run.
I wish my parents would have given me legos, konnects, and brain teasers when I was a munchkin. Instead, I got barbie dolls and dating games. What did that tell me about what I should expect from the real world?
I managed to get out of that, because I was so inclined to technical things that I balked against what my parents wanted, and did my own thing at school. Still, it's not as easy for every girl.
b) only 2 people have pointed out that these terms of service apply to posts on message boards and forums, which they reserve the right to replicate, duplicate, etc, and not to instant messages. --> False. The implied intent may be for them to protect themselves from being sued by people for posting content on forums, but the wording is clearly that this applies to instant messages. The wording is "AIM product", not "forums".
c) no one has pointed out that the vast majority of the messages sent through aim are sent client to client, and never travel through aol's central server, so even if they did reserve the right to use your im's any way they saw fit, and they had the desire to, there's no way that they ever could. --> False. This has been mentioned, and been marked false. Unless you are using DirectIM, which most people don't, your messages *are* travelling through the central server.
Somebody mod this guy down for being wrong, as well as redundant.
Even if these things *weren't* true, this "tinhatting" is necessary. It's time for people to start using encryption. Have people forgotten that AIM convs are plain text?
The reason they are probably doing this is because of the new policy about third party clients? Although I agree that this is a highly shady new policy, it seems striking that it would come so shortly after the announcement of "support" for third party clients. Sounds like they are trying to keep themselves from getting screwed over by them by someone *else* doing all these evil things they've said they're not responsible for.
There are really great points in this discussion, and in the articles that brought us to this discussion. Something that has been left out, however, is *who* is the user?
The article by the editor of ZDnet has intelligent things to say about design process, mainly that devs should be designing for their users, and not themselves. This in and of itself is an absolutely true statement. Where the trouble comes in is that software development does not really follow the standard model of design. It *can't*. When I design something for my users, ideally I would be as detached as possible from this user group, and then do research to find out what they want. I would observe them, interview them, take pictures, and use all sorts of techniques to build a picture of how the interaction works. Then I would build and synthesize, etc etc etc.
This model is *inherently* flawed for most software developers. It's like asking someone who spends all day in a tractor to redesign his tractor, while driving it. Yes, the tractor driver knows a heck of a lot about tractor driving. The main purpose of focusing on your user group, instead of designing for yourself, is to design truly innovative things, and not just generalize your user group to death.
So, to ask these tractor drivers (the devs) to design for other people is like asking your tractor driving to forget the fact that he's been driving a tractor for 12 years, and knows it inside and out.
From a commercial product perspective, maybe this needs to happen. Maybe we need to find a whole bunch of designers who have never used a computer and ask them to study this user group, and then design an interface that is truly innovative. But, on the other hand, maybe having software that reflects what the hardware is like is inherently better. I don't know, I play both sides of this game. Either way, people should be more tolerant and respectful of both Eugenia's and the devs' perspectives on the issue, since they are both technically right.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know that this is the first. Funtoo has been around for much longer and is a "real OS" rather than a internet box only OS. I'd be interested in how they think they compare, but I also don't think that people interested in linux in general would find webconverger a useful OS over Funtoo.
The only time I've *ever* clicked on a web banner intentionally, it was a flash banner, and the darn thing didn't work anyway. And that was..once. In the last ...14 years.
I just don't see who is clicking this crap in the first place.
I had this same problem with Comcast for almost 9 months. It drove me crazy. I ended up staying at the University computer science labs almost all the time, and the minute my lease expired, I moved.
I had about 4 different techs in, and they were all extremely competent. The problem wasn't with my house, it was with my neighborhood. The company, however, wasn't willing to dig up all the buried cable and fix it. So it never got fixed.
The comcast techs who came out said they had another tech who lived in the neighborhood who was suffering the same problem. They were trying to convince him to move.
It really stinks trying to do *anything* when you're getting 40-60% packet loss.
Got one of those embedded devices that only has a browser, and no OS? Now you can run all sorts of programs on that device. It's cross-platform. And now when Opera comes out for my DS, it can do all these things without any additional software, or memory cards. That may not have been what they were thinking of when they made these online ajax apps, but it certainly works as such.
I bought an ipod photo this week, and had it working that night with gtkpod in linux. Not a problem. Why would I want iTunes? I nearly went with a Creative for the ease of use in linux, bigger hard drive for cheaper, etc. But I couldn't resist the shiny. Oops.
I believe this is totally off base. *Hackers* tend to spell things correctly, and generally have an excellent sense of the English language, as explained by the jargon file. *Script kiddies*, however, are clearly guilty of the charges you laid out. They are yet young and foolish, though they may learn. But do not apply this to hackers, as they might feel inclined to respond and leave you long exacting diatribes in return.
Haha. Except when you're a UNIX god. Then you get to ride the forefront of the fame train. And, people's boxes just run better, so they're happier. *Grin*
"a calm simple place were the girls could all be princesses and have fun"
The thing that bothers me about allowing this sort of thing is that it reinforces the notion that women should stay at home and take care of the babies while the husband goes off to work and takes care of them. Granted, there's nothing wrong with staying home and taking care of babies if that's what you want to do, but lots of women might be a lot happier designing airplanes, or writing code for the next version of linux. Allowing this sort of Barbie/Ken stereotype to continue makes me so sad.
I realize it's hard to encourage your daughter to think out of the box when she lives in a world where she's told she's a little princess, and everything will be just dandy if she trusts her prince, but it really doesn't serve her in the long run.
I wish my parents would have given me legos, konnects, and brain teasers when I was a munchkin. Instead, I got barbie dolls and dating games. What did that tell me about what I should expect from the real world?
I managed to get out of that, because I was so inclined to technical things that I balked against what my parents wanted, and did my own thing at school. Still, it's not as easy for every girl.
I'm sorry, I like my black windowmaker setup so much better. I might throw up if someone made my desktop "pink".
Fuck the stereotypes, guys.
b) only 2 people have pointed out that these terms of service apply to posts on message boards and forums, which they reserve the right to replicate, duplicate, etc, and not to instant messages.
--> False. The implied intent may be for them to protect themselves from being sued by people for posting content on forums, but the wording is clearly that this applies to instant messages. The wording is "AIM product", not "forums".
c) no one has pointed out that the vast majority of the messages sent through aim are sent client to client, and never travel through aol's central server, so even if they did reserve the right to use your im's any way they saw fit, and they had the desire to, there's no way that they ever could.
--> False.
This has been mentioned, and been marked false. Unless you are using DirectIM, which most people don't, your messages *are* travelling through the central server.
Somebody mod this guy down for being wrong, as well as redundant.
Even if these things *weren't* true, this "tinhatting" is necessary. It's time for people to start using encryption. Have people forgotten that AIM convs are plain text?
The reason they are probably doing this is because of the new policy about third party clients? Although I agree that this is a highly shady new policy, it seems striking that it would come so shortly after the announcement of "support" for third party clients. Sounds like they are trying to keep themselves from getting screwed over by them by someone *else* doing all these evil things they've said they're not responsible for.
There are really great points in this discussion, and in the articles that brought us to this discussion. Something that has been left out, however, is *who* is the user?
The article by the editor of ZDnet has intelligent things to say about design process, mainly that devs should be designing for their users, and not themselves. This in and of itself is an absolutely true statement. Where the trouble comes in is that software development does not really follow the standard model of design. It *can't*. When I design something for my users, ideally I would be as detached as possible from this user group, and then do research to find out what they want. I would observe them, interview them, take pictures, and use all sorts of techniques to build a picture of how the interaction works. Then I would build and synthesize, etc etc etc.
This model is *inherently* flawed for most software developers. It's like asking someone who spends all day in a tractor to redesign his tractor, while driving it. Yes, the tractor driver knows a heck of a lot about tractor driving. The main purpose of focusing on your user group, instead of designing for yourself, is to design truly innovative things, and not just generalize your user group to death.
So, to ask these tractor drivers (the devs) to design for other people is like asking your tractor driving to forget the fact that he's been driving a tractor for 12 years, and knows it inside and out.
From a commercial product perspective, maybe this needs to happen. Maybe we need to find a whole bunch of designers who have never used a computer and ask them to study this user group, and then design an interface that is truly innovative. But, on the other hand, maybe having software that reflects what the hardware is like is inherently better. I don't know, I play both sides of this game. Either way, people should be more tolerant and respectful of both Eugenia's and the devs' perspectives on the issue, since they are both technically right.