Exactly! Sure, there are people that will follow a leader for no other reason than believing in the cause. But let's face it, the rest of us like to get a paycheck every other week and our "free" time is too filled with mowing the lawn, hanging out with friends, playing with the kids, etc.
The thing that bothered me about Flash was that I wanted to program in a "real" programming language. Actionscript just didn't do it for me. At the same time, I really like Flash for its capabilities. So, I was pleased to see a new product called Neoswiff come out, from a company called GlobFX. Do a Google search for it...
In brief, the product allows you to code Flash in C# from Visual Studio, and you get access to a reasonable selection of the.NET framework, ported to Flash. Anyway, it made the difference for me and I jumped right in. It's new, has a few problems, but it'll get there.
I have no association with GlobFX except for liking their product and technology...
THANK YOU! I've been saying the same thing myself...
AJAX *can* accomplish some cool things, there's so doubt. But to pretend it's NEW and COOL and the FUTURE is sad. I won't add too much to your post - you said it very well.
I agree. I've interviewed many technical staff, mostly developers, and the resume only gets them in the door. It absolutely does not get them the job. If certs is all they have, it shows VERY quickly in the interview!
So what have YOU done to stop this from getting worse? What universal package management system have you come up with to flatten this curve?
I have done nothing, and I will continue to do nothing. The reason is that I will just be adding to the problem and fighting against a current that will be too strong to fight against. If I was to come out with a new package management system or push for global adoption of one standard, then people would not all be able to disagree and it would fail.
Because it's a free system, people are free to do what they want to do, and they will. Fine. If anything, my push for a new fancy package scheme would cause another 5 package formats to be created when an internal splinter in the development team caused a disagreement and the code branched to produce 5 new projects!
OK, so *you* never said you wanted widespread adoption of Linux, and if less users are what you want, then you're certainly going about it the right way. BUT, a very large and vocal part of the open-source/Linux community says this is what they want and complain that it's not happening. I incorrect assumed you were part of that group - bad assumption on my part - but it was a reasonable assumption to make given that this seems to be the majority opinion.
You mean launch GUI, click through the wizard, and install the package it creates? How is that any different? Because the "Next" buttons don't appear under your mouse ready for your automatic click without thinking about it?
Sigh. It's simply amazing to me that you can't see how the ATI install is just absurd. It *is* a hack because it attempts (quite well) to nicely hide the underlying mess of it all. ATI had to test every single one of those combinations and it probably took them a long time. How come most hardware manufacturers are not doing this? Could it be that it's a hassle, a hack, and too time consuming? That was my original point I made a year ago before we both installed soapbox 2.6.
One of them was late 50s, so yes, older than you I guess...
I don't think we really need to bring age into the discussion, especially if you make good points and a clear argument, which you in fact do.
My point would be that critical thinking and experience/skills are different. The amount of experience and skills you have can extend the range of what your critical thinking can apply to. Personally, my critical thinking takes a nose-dive in discussions around brain surgery.
And you're telling ME to get off my soapbox!! LOL!
Yes, typing and reading are hard skills to master, I understand.
I'm sorry, but you don't get it. It's not that people *can't* do these things, it's that they don't *want* to, and therefore they won't. If you really want more people to use Linux (and it seems like you do) then you have to get into the mind of the average user. Telling them they're stupid (which may actually be the case!) doesn't help. If you TRULY want more widespread adoption - on the desktop - of Linux, then focus on developing tools and systems that make it easier for vendors to more easily support it. It really is that simple. The ability for Linux to support ONE set of binary only drivers for each MAJOR kernel version would be a HUGE benefit. The ATI thing is a hack that probably took a huge amount of effort (money) to make. I mean, the thing automatically makes install packages for various distributions! Why not just make ONE way of distributing Linux drivers so you don't need such time-consuming hacks. Also, check of the installation instructions for the Linux driver and compare that to the (non-existent) instructions for the Windows driver. Yes, we're talking about Windows now, since you brought up the topic.
Obviously, having just one way of doing something is against how the open source community does things, and it is both an advantage AND a disadvantage. A particular model, like Open-source, isn't ALWAYS the BEST BEST BEST way in EVERY situation.
Oh, and "I've been doing it for over a decade" too, so don't go all alpha-geek on me. As I'm sure you did, I installed Linux from a number of floppy disks. I loved Linux and still do. But I also realize that Linux is deeply flawed and FAR from being an acceptable desktop replacement for a majority of users. The thing holding it back is the attitude of the Open-source community themselves.
Here we go... "I'm older than you, and so I know more, so just believe what I say". Doesn't fly - I've MENTORED developers that are older than you.
Critical thinking and problem solving have very little to do with experience and skill-set. No, I could not do that in Fortran, but who cares? If I *needed* to do it, I'd figure it out. But I don't, so I won't...
You simply cannot deny that drivers for Linux are more hassle. Just take a look at the installation procedure for the NVidia driver. For you and me, it's simple. For a regular user (try to step out of geekdom for a second) it's just insane. Type this, read this, what the fuck?
Binary drivers that are simple to install are in packages, right. For what distribution? Do I have that distribution? Answer this question: If a vendor (not the community) wanted to support Linux using binary-only packages, how many packages would they need to compile/test and support? Just add it up and come back with the answer.
Sorry, this isn't Windows, and that's not how it works in Linux. Which driver do you want? What capabilities do you want? What kind of hardware do you have? There is no "magic bullet" and there shouldn't be.
Classic denial. "This isn't Windows". Whatever.. I said NOTHING about Windows in my post, *you* did, and you appear to have a prett ybig chip on your shoulder. You don't like it when your baby (Linux) is criticized and when someone suggests that it could be better. You say there is no "magic bullet", which is true. But come on, the QUEST for the magic bullet is what makes things better! Shouldn't Linux have a BETTER driver model, however you define "better". Shouldn't it strive to be easier to use? Easier to write drivers for?
In addition, a lot of the competetive advantage is in the driver and not the hardware. Why release your uber cool algorithm for your competitor to copy if you just spent a million bucks making it?
Now you do touch on it, there is no "linux" way, because Linux is a kernel. You need an OS distro to run applications. Each distro has its own way of installing.
*I* understood what you just said, but it is ironic that your statement just highlights the general problem with Linux and users. This is what a normal person heard you say:
"Now you do youch on it, there is no linux way, because Linux is the edible seed of a nut. You need a TECHY BLAH BLAH to run applications. Each BLAH BLAH has its own way of installing".
The mindset of the average techy geek (of which I am one) is not the same as the mindset of the average user. They are not going to learn our ways, they are not going to type "./configure;./make install" and they are not ever ever going to find it a wonderful thing that there are 40 versions of Linux out there to choose from.
I'm not saying I have a solution, but I *am* saying that the Linux/FOSS crowd needs to understand their target audience better, if they are serious about venturing into it.
Well, maybe if it was easy/possible to distribute BINARY drivers for Linux, this wouldn't be so much of a problem. And yes, most companies want to release binary drivers because increasingly the value of their product is in the driver and not the hardware.
Also, there is simply no way that a user should have to compile a damn driver - it's just silly to even consider saying that. All the diversity of distributions and kernel versions does not help this problem as it pretty much guarantees you have to compile the driver because some Linux kernel geek decided to tweak one thing to make it "better".
Coming from a USER's perspective (and not giving a shit about "kernels" or "distributions") I would want to be able to know that I have version 2.6 of Linux and therefore I need to click on the "Download Version 2.6 driver" link on the website. The distribution shouldn't matter and the particular version (e.g. 2.6.9.3.2.4rc1-ac3-beta2) shouldn't matter either.
In summary, I think that the complexity of the driver model and the complexity of the required install discourages hardware manufacturers from wanting to support Linux. It doesn't stop it entirely, but it does discourage them.
Exactly right. An OS is mostly useless without 3rd party vendor support. What the hell are you supposed to *do* with this awesome OS that has nobody writing software for? This is something that Microsoft understood from the beginning: support the developers, and support the people making APPLICATIONS for your OS. In the case of Linux/Open-source, this is much harder to do as it is not centralized - who is supporting me? In other areas, the non-centralized aspect of Open-source/Linux is an advantage, but people are being zealots if they believe that the open-source model is better in all regards, all the time.
Yes yes, Microsoft are evil n' all, but it doesn't mean they're completely stupid.
I'm sorry, but you pretty much just lost your argument there. What you did there was not rocket science, was not brain surgery, and was pretty much minimal critical thinking. When you've done some computer system architecture, design and implementation, *then* we can talk.
Yes, I've done the range of tasks and so I am indeed aware of the amount of critical thinking that is involved in each.
Washington Mutual just "upgraded" their online system. They changed some, not all, of the pages to ASP.NET from ASP. The ones they upgraded (bill pay was one) are broken in Firefox - they look like crap. All I had to do to find this was log in, pay a bill, and hit "submit". This is something that I would have expected they test...
Anyway, I emailed them to bitch about it. I imagine that others did too, as the site is currently down.
My point is that even WaMu (the "better bank" in many regards) still has shitty testing and compatibility issues.
Check out the job postings these days. C#/ASP.NET developers are in VERY HIGH demand. For a long time, ASP was pretty shitty and worse than PHP and other technologies. With the arrival of ASP.NET/C#, the tide is turning back towards MS technologies, although these changes occur over periods of years and so it's hard to judge sometimes.
Apache/Linux/etc may be free, but the costs of the MS software is minimal compared to the cost of a developer. A decent developer will cost you anywhere from 70-100K depending on a number of factors. If you included "fully loaded" costs of healthcare, 401k, vacation, then the actual cost is about 25% higher. Who gives a shit if that same company spends a few thousand here and there on software, especially when the MS software is potentially more productive, and certainly easier and quicker to learn...
Sure, if you have a LOT of servers per developer (Google, for example) then your OS/software costs are critical. But imagine a mid-sized company, with 5 developers working on a web site that runs on 2 Servers. You think they care about 20K of software?
What on earth are you talking about? Windows *server* OS's have IIS included and ready to run. The cost of Windows Server is MINIMAL when compared to the cost of admin staff, and even the cost of the HVAC system that cools whatever computer you buy! For many businesses (not all of course - this is not a black and white world) using a Windows Server platform saves them time and money. This quite simply because many companies don't have "real IT professionals" as you put it, and instead have a team of windows IT staff already in place.
Before turning into the typical Slashdot coward, why not research yourself first? The answer is "no", there was no indication of the kind of stuff he was going to play.
Umm, no. You must have misread my post. I said, "I paid $60 to hear the stuff I like - his old stuff."
It's quite easy to surmise that I didn't in fact pay $60 just to see him put on "a concert". My expectations are my own, and I am quite within my rights to feel let down, along with 90% of the people that attended the concert, if the concert did not meet my expectations.
Going to see a band perform the songs you like at a concert is nothing at all like hearing a band perform those same songs on a CD. This concert was at "the Gorge" in WA state, so the weather is awesome, the view is incredible, and on top of that you can go and see a band. Arguing I should have just bought the CD is just rediculous, and a very weak argument. Check out the link below for one of the reasons that people go to The Gorge to see concerts.
I had the misfortune of going to see David Bowie a couple of years ago. I was, as you say, willing to pay to see his old hits. What actually happened was that he played 75-80% of his new stuff, and the rest was the good old stuff. At regular intervals in the show, the audience would chant "Major Tom! Major Tom!" (yes, I know that's not the name of the song) and he just ignored them. At one point, he even started the intro to tease the audience, and then moved on to something else! What an asshole!
The argument I hear when I complain about this is that "he must get fed up of playing his old stuff". My response is: I don't give a fuck what he's "fed up of". I paid $60 to hear the stuff I like - his old stuff. David Bowie *knows* this and decided to play his new shit that's just awful.
I also went to see Bjork one time... It was in Seattle, at "the pier". She wasn't allowed to run her fireworks because we were standing on wood over water, so she got all sulky and did a short show without an encore. Who doesn't do an encore?! So the whole audience stood there like idiots chanting "encore encore". 10 minutes passed... We all looked at each other and slowly walked out, annoyed.
In short, fuck concerts, especially those of the old artists who don't enjoy them, don't care what the audience (the fucking CUSTOMER!) want, and are only doing it to finance their latest castle/porsche combo. Fuck 'em.
I currently work as a developer on Windows. I want to work outside but a laptop just won't cut it due to lack of LCD brightness and need for much faster hardware for running Visual Studio 2005 decently. I want something that is a "normal" computer in terms of performance and screen size, but don't want to set up a computer outside every day.
Therefore, I am considering getting a 20" iMac. I figure it will be easy to move it outside every day, and I'll have enough power to do all the development work I need to do.
Why an iMac? Well, I also need to do some testing of websites using a Mac.
Anyone else have a situation similar to mine? iMac (or similar) working for you? Any other ideas?
"you can install any module simply by running the script as root."
"Module", "script", "root". Three words that 99% of users don't understand, or care to understand. How about they just double-click on setup.exe instead? Yeah, that was much easier...
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly! Sure, there are people that will follow a leader for no other reason than believing in the cause. But let's face it, the rest of us like to get a paycheck every other week and our "free" time is too filled with mowing the lawn, hanging out with friends, playing with the kids, etc.
In brief, the product allows you to code Flash in C# from Visual Studio, and you get access to a reasonable selection of the .NET framework, ported to Flash. Anyway, it made the difference for me and I jumped right in. It's new, has a few problems, but it'll get there.
I have no association with GlobFX except for liking their product and technology...
AJAX *can* accomplish some cool things, there's so doubt. But to pretend it's NEW and COOL and the FUTURE is sad. I won't add too much to your post - you said it very well.
I agree. I've interviewed many technical staff, mostly developers, and the resume only gets them in the door. It absolutely does not get them the job. If certs is all they have, it shows VERY quickly in the interview!
I have done nothing, and I will continue to do nothing. The reason is that I will just be adding to the problem and fighting against a current that will be too strong to fight against. If I was to come out with a new package management system or push for global adoption of one standard, then people would not all be able to disagree and it would fail.
Because it's a free system, people are free to do what they want to do, and they will. Fine. If anything, my push for a new fancy package scheme would cause another 5 package formats to be created when an internal splinter in the development team caused a disagreement and the code branched to produce 5 new projects!
OK, so *you* never said you wanted widespread adoption of Linux, and if less users are what you want, then you're certainly going about it the right way. BUT, a very large and vocal part of the open-source/Linux community says this is what they want and complain that it's not happening. I incorrect assumed you were part of that group - bad assumption on my part - but it was a reasonable assumption to make given that this seems to be the majority opinion.
You mean launch GUI, click through the wizard, and install the package it creates? How is that any different? Because the "Next" buttons don't appear under your mouse ready for your automatic click without thinking about it?
Sigh. It's simply amazing to me that you can't see how the ATI install is just absurd. It *is* a hack because it attempts (quite well) to nicely hide the underlying mess of it all. ATI had to test every single one of those combinations and it probably took them a long time. How come most hardware manufacturers are not doing this? Could it be that it's a hassle, a hack, and too time consuming? That was my original point I made a year ago before we both installed soapbox 2.6.
I don't think we really need to bring age into the discussion, especially if you make good points and a clear argument, which you in fact do.
My point would be that critical thinking and experience/skills are different. The amount of experience and skills you have can extend the range of what your critical thinking can apply to. Personally, my critical thinking takes a nose-dive in discussions around brain surgery.
Yes, typing and reading are hard skills to master, I understand.
I'm sorry, but you don't get it. It's not that people *can't* do these things, it's that they don't *want* to, and therefore they won't. If you really want more people to use Linux (and it seems like you do) then you have to get into the mind of the average user. Telling them they're stupid (which may actually be the case!) doesn't help. If you TRULY want more widespread adoption - on the desktop - of Linux, then focus on developing tools and systems that make it easier for vendors to more easily support it. It really is that simple. The ability for Linux to support ONE set of binary only drivers for each MAJOR kernel version would be a HUGE benefit. The ATI thing is a hack that probably took a huge amount of effort (money) to make. I mean, the thing automatically makes install packages for various distributions! Why not just make ONE way of distributing Linux drivers so you don't need such time-consuming hacks. Also, check of the installation instructions for the Linux driver and compare that to the (non-existent) instructions for the Windows driver. Yes, we're talking about Windows now, since you brought up the topic.
Obviously, having just one way of doing something is against how the open source community does things, and it is both an advantage AND a disadvantage. A particular model, like Open-source, isn't ALWAYS the BEST BEST BEST way in EVERY situation.
Oh, and "I've been doing it for over a decade" too, so don't go all alpha-geek on me. As I'm sure you did, I installed Linux from a number of floppy disks. I loved Linux and still do. But I also realize that Linux is deeply flawed and FAR from being an acceptable desktop replacement for a majority of users. The thing holding it back is the attitude of the Open-source community themselves.
Critical thinking and problem solving have very little to do with experience and skill-set. No, I could not do that in Fortran, but who cares? If I *needed* to do it, I'd figure it out. But I don't, so I won't...
Binary drivers that are simple to install are in packages, right. For what distribution? Do I have that distribution? Answer this question: If a vendor (not the community) wanted to support Linux using binary-only packages, how many packages would they need to compile/test and support? Just add it up and come back with the answer.
Sorry, this isn't Windows, and that's not how it works in Linux. Which driver do you want? What capabilities do you want? What kind of hardware do you have? There is no "magic bullet" and there shouldn't be.
Classic denial. "This isn't Windows". Whatever.. I said NOTHING about Windows in my post, *you* did, and you appear to have a prett ybig chip on your shoulder. You don't like it when your baby (Linux) is criticized and when someone suggests that it could be better. You say there is no "magic bullet", which is true. But come on, the QUEST for the magic bullet is what makes things better! Shouldn't Linux have a BETTER driver model, however you define "better". Shouldn't it strive to be easier to use? Easier to write drivers for?
In addition, a lot of the competetive advantage is in the driver and not the hardware. Why release your uber cool algorithm for your competitor to copy if you just spent a million bucks making it?
*I* understood what you just said, but it is ironic that your statement just highlights the general problem with Linux and users. This is what a normal person heard you say:
"Now you do youch on it, there is no linux way, because Linux is the edible seed of a nut. You need a TECHY BLAH BLAH to run applications. Each BLAH BLAH has its own way of installing".
The mindset of the average techy geek (of which I am one) is not the same as the mindset of the average user. They are not going to learn our ways, they are not going to type "./configure; ./make install" and they are not ever ever going to find it a wonderful thing that there are 40 versions of Linux out there to choose from.
I'm not saying I have a solution, but I *am* saying that the Linux/FOSS crowd needs to understand their target audience better, if they are serious about venturing into it.
Also, there is simply no way that a user should have to compile a damn driver - it's just silly to even consider saying that. All the diversity of distributions and kernel versions does not help this problem as it pretty much guarantees you have to compile the driver because some Linux kernel geek decided to tweak one thing to make it "better".
Coming from a USER's perspective (and not giving a shit about "kernels" or "distributions") I would want to be able to know that I have version 2.6 of Linux and therefore I need to click on the "Download Version 2.6 driver" link on the website. The distribution shouldn't matter and the particular version (e.g. 2.6.9.3.2.4rc1-ac3-beta2) shouldn't matter either.
In summary, I think that the complexity of the driver model and the complexity of the required install discourages hardware manufacturers from wanting to support Linux. It doesn't stop it entirely, but it does discourage them.
Yes yes, Microsoft are evil n' all, but it doesn't mean they're completely stupid.
Yes, I've done the range of tasks and so I am indeed aware of the amount of critical thinking that is involved in each.
I'm running out of banks. I already left US Bank (bastards) and Wells Fargo (fuckers) for worse reasons..
Yes, thank goodness that Google is not a monopoly with billions behind them.
Anyway, I emailed them to bitch about it. I imagine that others did too, as the site is currently down.
My point is that even WaMu (the "better bank" in many regards) still has shitty testing and compatibility issues.
Check out the job postings these days. C#/ASP.NET developers are in VERY HIGH demand. For a long time, ASP was pretty shitty and worse than PHP and other technologies. With the arrival of ASP.NET/C#, the tide is turning back towards MS technologies, although these changes occur over periods of years and so it's hard to judge sometimes.
Apache/Linux/etc may be free, but the costs of the MS software is minimal compared to the cost of a developer. A decent developer will cost you anywhere from 70-100K depending on a number of factors. If you included "fully loaded" costs of healthcare, 401k, vacation, then the actual cost is about 25% higher. Who gives a shit if that same company spends a few thousand here and there on software, especially when the MS software is potentially more productive, and certainly easier and quicker to learn...
Sure, if you have a LOT of servers per developer (Google, for example) then your OS/software costs are critical. But imagine a mid-sized company, with 5 developers working on a web site that runs on 2 Servers. You think they care about 20K of software?
What on earth are you talking about? Windows *server* OS's have IIS included and ready to run. The cost of Windows Server is MINIMAL when compared to the cost of admin staff, and even the cost of the HVAC system that cools whatever computer you buy! For many businesses (not all of course - this is not a black and white world) using a Windows Server platform saves them time and money. This quite simply because many companies don't have "real IT professionals" as you put it, and instead have a team of windows IT staff already in place.
Before turning into the typical Slashdot coward, why not research yourself first? The answer is "no", there was no indication of the kind of stuff he was going to play.
It's quite easy to surmise that I didn't in fact pay $60 just to see him put on "a concert". My expectations are my own, and I am quite within my rights to feel let down, along with 90% of the people that attended the concert, if the concert did not meet my expectations.
Going to see a band perform the songs you like at a concert is nothing at all like hearing a band perform those same songs on a CD. This concert was at "the Gorge" in WA state, so the weather is awesome, the view is incredible, and on top of that you can go and see a band. Arguing I should have just bought the CD is just rediculous, and a very weak argument. Check out the link below for one of the reasons that people go to The Gorge to see concerts.
ahref=http://www.ford-audio.com/news.htmrel=url2ht ml-7043http://www.ford-audio.com/news.htm>
The argument I hear when I complain about this is that "he must get fed up of playing his old stuff". My response is: I don't give a fuck what he's "fed up of". I paid $60 to hear the stuff I like - his old stuff. David Bowie *knows* this and decided to play his new shit that's just awful.
I also went to see Bjork one time... It was in Seattle, at "the pier". She wasn't allowed to run her fireworks because we were standing on wood over water, so she got all sulky and did a short show without an encore. Who doesn't do an encore?! So the whole audience stood there like idiots chanting "encore encore". 10 minutes passed... We all looked at each other and slowly walked out, annoyed.
In short, fuck concerts, especially those of the old artists who don't enjoy them, don't care what the audience (the fucking CUSTOMER!) want, and are only doing it to finance their latest castle/porsche combo. Fuck 'em.
I currently work as a developer on Windows. I want to work outside but a laptop just won't cut it due to lack of LCD brightness and need for much faster hardware for running Visual Studio 2005 decently. I want something that is a "normal" computer in terms of performance and screen size, but don't want to set up a computer outside every day.
Therefore, I am considering getting a 20" iMac. I figure it will be easy to move it outside every day, and I'll have enough power to do all the development work I need to do.
Why an iMac? Well, I also need to do some testing of websites using a Mac.
Anyone else have a situation similar to mine? iMac (or similar) working for you? Any other ideas?
"Module", "script", "root". Three words that 99% of users don't understand, or care to understand. How about they just double-click on setup.exe instead? Yeah, that was much easier...