"How Apple is going to Screw Up Again" "OS X: The Worst Interface on Earth" "The iPod's Coming Disaster" "Why Linux will fail" "Why AMD Sucks" etc....if you didn't get it by now, Dvorak's only point is to get you to CLICK ON HIS ARTICLE. It really doesn't matter if he makes any sense or not, he just wants you to click on the article to increase his hits. Don't feed the trolls.
It's clear that the designer of the Apple products, Jonathon Ive, had absolutely *nothing* to do with the 'Rokr', right down to the inept name. What we see is a dog's breakfast of engineering requirements, packaged together in button filled generic plastic box. I can't tell this from any other cell phone, who cares about the music function. Whoever did this clearly doesn't 'get' it, preferring instead to make it 'feature filled' instead of *useable*--and yes, there's a huge difference. That's why Dell's mp3's have failed, why Sony and every other Asian competitor failed, by letting engineers instead of designers (who know something about UI) design useful objects. Dell's mindset is that more buttons = higher technology (=higher prices). Wrong wrong wrong. Hint--it's *not* about throwing everything in, but about what to throw out.
The most noteworthy result out of this absolute design failure is that Apple instead of Motorola may get to design the next version. Nothing out of Motorola, and that includes the much lauded Razor, comes close to the elegance of Apple's designs. In distinction, as if to make a point, the iPod nano was clearly the thing everyone was watching that day, even though the phone was supposed to be the star of the show.
I fear unfortunately that this falls on deaf ears, as tech companies prefer to add more crap on the outside (Alienware) and inside (Windows, and Linux too), without spending any time in thinking about real functionality, i.e. less extraneous crap = more useability.
A nationwide wimax effort by Craig McCaw, and is being beta tested across the US at the moment. Starts at $30 a month, and completely portable (bring the modem with you).
http://www.clearwire.com/
Don't you remember why the US went to war? 9/11!!
Osama bin Hussein was going to kill us all!
Um, I mean Saddam bin Ladin, he was going to fly a plane into the nearest shopping mall in middle town USA!! Oh my god!!!! Bush had to do it, to protect our way of life!!!! This had nothing to do with getting back for daddy, protecting Saudi/American oil interests, asserting American military power over the mideast, etc. It's for the children!!!! You must be a godless Clinton-loving abortionist, you commie fag....
How can you call Dell a hardware company? Because they put everything in a well designed box? All the components are 3rd party... Dell doesn't make processors, Dell doesn't make memory, Dell doesn't make harddrives or video cards or sound cards. They buy them from hardware companies, put them in a shiny box and then run *their software* on it.
...diesel, that had a sticky gas pedal. The first couple of times on the highway, it freaked me out, as it stayed down and kept accelerating. I'd have to pump it a few times before it would get unstuck. At least since it was a Rabbit, as it could only accelerate to about 80. God help whoever bought that car from me...
Actually, I've been looking for something like this for a bit--does anyone here know of a program that changes a jpeg or other digital photo into an 'old style' ascii art image?
The royalties are nothing to the RIAA, the amount the artists receive are about 50 cents out of the average $15 CD. That's why the organized music industry is so strong--they have an extremely vested interest in keeping this atrocious pricing structure intact. The real reason the internet worries the RIAA is that for the first time, artists (like Prince and Pearl Jam) have the ability to completely bypass this archaic distribution system and sell directly to the consumer, without all the associated markups, and receive a larger piece of the pie. Commercial distribution systems like iTunes are actually closer to traditional CD/vinyl sales, at least in their royalty structure.
Somewhat off topic, but can someone here explain the difference between these high end gaming cards and a workstation graphics card (for Autocad, 3D Studio, Maya, etc). As I understand it, it has to do with how they deal with dedicated rendering windows, but on the other hand, these high end game cards often come with Autocad drivers, and seem to work perfectly fine for the above programs. So why get the latter, and these cards are often $1000+. What are the speed/quality differences?; most game sites don't review these other cards.
...and that's to drive web hits--and advertising revenue. Dvorak, Enderle and others do this, deliberately, all the time (mostly when they can't think of anything else to write). They know that a "Mac Sucks", "Mac is Dead (really this time" article is sure to drive up readership, even if it's to pissed off Mac fans. There can be little to no content behind the substance. They don't care, all the marketing people see are numbers attached to the article. My advice: don't read this trash.
A simple glance at the byline shows that it is a Reuters newswire article written by their tech columnist, Reed Stevenson, and bought/republished by Forbes. Thus I don't think it's an indication of any 'official' stance on Forbes' part. That being said, it's clear that the Reuters author didn't do his homework.
The fact of the matter is that IBM, Novell, Red Hat, etc., hire (and will continue to hire in greater numbers) software programmers on GPL projects. Why do this instead of getting something for nothing? Because of capitalism.
Think of it like this: the Microsoft model of economic efficiency is to drive software expenses down to zero (through offshore hiring, part-time consulting or other means). However, free software starts from zero and goes up in manpower costs to a level determined by competition. This is the IBM/Redhat et al model. Why would these companies pay good money for programmers instead of getting something for nothing? Because of natural capitalism, having an advantage over one's competitors. These companies realize that in order to having a better distro and better service means to write and package software in a proprietary manner that is distinct from and arguably better than one's competition. Having software free and open does *not* mean simply giving stuff away to your compeititors in the real world.
There are a couple of reasons for this: one is each company's desire to differentiate its package from anothers and address certain markets: Red Hat has its market, Lindows has its. This means dedicated programmers to address specific problems for each OS. Yes they can and do borrow from each other, but it makes no sense to take enterprise class software and stick it in Lindows. Same with regionally specific distributions. And so on.
So again why hire instead of 'letting it happen', so to speak. Because these companies quickly realize that it does not happen of its own accord--you have to hire people to get what you want. A good case in point is Star Office--Sun and others quickly realize that in order to develop this MS Office killer beyond perpetual beta status, they have to hire personnel to coordinate and write for the project. It does not mean getting something for nothing. Since it's also in IBM and Novell's interest to help this project, they will also contribute man hours to Star/Open Office.
So finally, if other companies are willing to pitch in dollars, why not simply wait for others to pay up first, and reap the benefits of their investment? Again, competition: in the real world there is a distinct time lag, a friction if you will, between the time of invention and the distribution of a software product. Look at the 2.6 kernel, for instance--free and open, yes, but how many distributions have it incorporated in their packages? Not SuSE, not Redhat, not Debian (at least in any final form). This takes a serious amount of time and work to properly coordinate in one's package. The time lag between your ability to have these features over one's competitors leads to a very real world advantage your competitors, one they can advertise and sell to potential buyers. Six months is a lifetime in the software industry.
So how much should one hire F/OSS programmers for? However much the market will bear. If you have the skills, IBM (or whoever) will hire you. I'm no economist, but this is a very promising area of investigation--my guess is perhaps less than existing salaries, but more than offshore hiring (due to again natural advantages of having a programmer in the same room as the project manager), and certainly more than zero.
is that this sorry series will be over, at least the George Lucas part of it. Here's hoping 7-9 will be given to someone with some real edge, like Stephen Spielberg (whose AI or Minority Report films shows how to do intelligent and thought provoking Sci-Fi), or Peter Jackson, who singlehandedly blew away the Star Wars franchise, by revealing the richness and origins of the Star Wars mythology with LOTR. Instead of working on the depth of the mythos, which is what the fans are after, Lucas instead overwhelms us with superficial details--pod racers, giant fighting robots, wookies, talking lizards. By the time the film comes out, why bother? You've already seen it before, only louder and bigger.
Or SCO for that matter? For companies in which Linux is allegedly a direct threat, having the GPL declared invalid is precisely what they want: for MS, everyone moves over to XP, for SCO, people buy more Unix licenses. All GPL software
...with Zinio , which gives you the exact duplicate of their printed page, with a kind of a pdf format which zooms in and out to fit your screen (handy for laptops). Some major magazines such as Business Week, PC Magazine and others are available; free samples are available.
This is the same guy who was shown Linux code and told it was stolen from SCO--he then parroted the same crap to help boost SCO's stock prices. This guy's on the opposite end of "tech expert"--please don't feed or publicize this troll.
Slashdot Mirror
So Kawaii!!!
"How Apple is going to Screw Up Again" ...if you didn't get it by now, Dvorak's only point is to get you to CLICK ON HIS ARTICLE. It really doesn't matter if he makes any sense or not, he just wants you to click on the article to increase his hits. Don't feed the trolls.
"OS X: The Worst Interface on Earth"
"The iPod's Coming Disaster"
"Why Linux will fail"
"Why AMD Sucks"
etc.
It's clear that the designer of the Apple products, Jonathon Ive, had absolutely *nothing* to do with the 'Rokr', right down to the inept name. What we see is a dog's breakfast of engineering requirements, packaged together in button filled generic plastic box. I can't tell this from any other cell phone, who cares about the music function. Whoever did this clearly doesn't 'get' it, preferring instead to make it 'feature filled' instead of *useable*--and yes, there's a huge difference. That's why Dell's mp3's have failed, why Sony and every other Asian competitor failed, by letting engineers instead of designers (who know something about UI) design useful objects. Dell's mindset is that more buttons = higher technology (=higher prices). Wrong wrong wrong. Hint--it's *not* about throwing everything in, but about what to throw out.
The most noteworthy result out of this absolute design failure is that Apple instead of Motorola may get to design the next version. Nothing out of Motorola, and that includes the much lauded Razor, comes close to the elegance of Apple's designs. In distinction, as if to make a point, the iPod nano was clearly the thing everyone was watching that day, even though the phone was supposed to be the star of the show.
I fear unfortunately that this falls on deaf ears, as tech companies prefer to add more crap on the outside (Alienware) and inside (Windows, and Linux too), without spending any time in thinking about real functionality, i.e. less extraneous crap = more useability.
A nationwide wimax effort by Craig McCaw, and is being beta tested across the US at the moment. Starts at $30 a month, and completely portable (bring the modem with you). http://www.clearwire.com/
Don't you remember why the US went to war? 9/11!! Osama bin Hussein was going to kill us all! Um, I mean Saddam bin Ladin, he was going to fly a plane into the nearest shopping mall in middle town USA!! Oh my god!!!! Bush had to do it, to protect our way of life!!!! This had nothing to do with getting back for daddy, protecting Saudi/American oil interests, asserting American military power over the mideast, etc. It's for the children!!!! You must be a godless Clinton-loving abortionist, you commie fag....
...then they can leapfrog everyone else!
How can you call Dell a hardware company? Because they put everything in a well designed box? All the components are 3rd party... Dell doesn't make processors, Dell doesn't make memory, Dell doesn't make harddrives or video cards or sound cards. They buy them from hardware companies, put them in a shiny box and then run *their software* on it.
...diesel, that had a sticky gas pedal. The first couple of times on the highway, it freaked me out, as it stayed down and kept accelerating. I'd have to pump it a few times before it would get unstuck. At least since it was a Rabbit, as it could only accelerate to about 80. God help whoever bought that car from me...
Actually, I've been looking for something like this for a bit--does anyone here know of a program that changes a jpeg or other digital photo into an 'old style' ascii art image?
(dmcbride@sco.com)
Added proprietary Unix System V lines of code
The royalties are nothing to the RIAA, the amount the artists receive are about 50 cents out of the average $15 CD. That's why the organized music industry is so strong--they have an extremely vested interest in keeping this atrocious pricing structure intact. The real reason the internet worries the RIAA is that for the first time, artists (like Prince and Pearl Jam) have the ability to completely bypass this archaic distribution system and sell directly to the consumer, without all the associated markups, and receive a larger piece of the pie. Commercial distribution systems like iTunes are actually closer to traditional CD/vinyl sales, at least in their royalty structure.
Somewhat off topic, but can someone here explain the difference between these high end gaming cards and a workstation graphics card (for Autocad, 3D Studio, Maya, etc). As I understand it, it has to do with how they deal with dedicated rendering windows, but on the other hand, these high end game cards often come with Autocad drivers, and seem to work perfectly fine for the above programs. So why get the latter, and these cards are often $1000+. What are the speed/quality differences?; most game sites don't review these other cards.
of teeth! Mmmm...
You've never heard of the Russian MB? Have they got a deal for you (that you can't refuse).
Everyone knows Apple's doomed; industry analysts keep saying it....
I've noticed that Mapquest no longer has the aerial map feature, not sure why they pulled it. Are there any substitutes out there?
...and that's to drive web hits--and advertising revenue. Dvorak, Enderle and others do this, deliberately, all the time (mostly when they can't think of anything else to write). They know that a "Mac Sucks", "Mac is Dead (really this time" article is sure to drive up readership, even if it's to pissed off Mac fans. There can be little to no content behind the substance. They don't care, all the marketing people see are numbers attached to the article. My advice: don't read this trash.
A simple glance at the byline shows that it is a Reuters newswire article written by their tech columnist, Reed Stevenson, and bought/republished by Forbes. Thus I don't think it's an indication of any 'official' stance on Forbes' part. That being said, it's clear that the Reuters author didn't do his homework.
Anderer was probably going, "how the heck do I get rid of all those squiggly lines in my document?"
The fact of the matter is that IBM, Novell, Red Hat, etc., hire (and will continue to hire in greater numbers) software programmers on GPL projects. Why do this instead of getting something for nothing? Because of capitalism.
Think of it like this: the Microsoft model of economic efficiency is to drive software expenses down to zero (through offshore hiring, part-time consulting or other means). However, free software starts from zero and goes up in manpower costs to a level determined by competition. This is the IBM/Redhat et al model. Why would these companies pay good money for programmers instead of getting something for nothing? Because of natural capitalism, having an advantage over one's competitors. These companies realize that in order to having a better distro and better service means to write and package software in a proprietary manner that is distinct from and arguably better than one's competition. Having software free and open does *not* mean simply giving stuff away to your compeititors in the real world.
There are a couple of reasons for this: one is each company's desire to differentiate its package from anothers and address certain markets: Red Hat has its market, Lindows has its. This means dedicated programmers to address specific problems for each OS. Yes they can and do borrow from each other, but it makes no sense to take enterprise class software and stick it in Lindows. Same with regionally specific distributions. And so on.
So again why hire instead of 'letting it happen', so to speak. Because these companies quickly realize that it does not happen of its own accord--you have to hire people to get what you want. A good case in point is Star Office--Sun and others quickly realize that in order to develop this MS Office killer beyond perpetual beta status, they have to hire personnel to coordinate and write for the project. It does not mean getting something for nothing. Since it's also in IBM and Novell's interest to help this project, they will also contribute man hours to Star/Open Office.
So finally, if other companies are willing to pitch in dollars, why not simply wait for others to pay up first, and reap the benefits of their investment? Again, competition: in the real world there is a distinct time lag, a friction if you will, between the time of invention and the distribution of a software product. Look at the 2.6 kernel, for instance--free and open, yes, but how many distributions have it incorporated in their packages? Not SuSE, not Redhat, not Debian (at least in any final form). This takes a serious amount of time and work to properly coordinate in one's package. The time lag between your ability to have these features over one's competitors leads to a very real world advantage your competitors, one they can advertise and sell to potential buyers. Six months is a lifetime in the software industry.
So how much should one hire F/OSS programmers for? However much the market will bear. If you have the skills, IBM (or whoever) will hire you. I'm no economist, but this is a very promising area of investigation--my guess is perhaps less than existing salaries, but more than offshore hiring (due to again natural advantages of having a programmer in the same room as the project manager), and certainly more than zero.
is that this sorry series will be over, at least the George Lucas part of it. Here's hoping 7-9 will be given to someone with some real edge, like Stephen Spielberg (whose AI or Minority Report films shows how to do intelligent and thought provoking Sci-Fi), or Peter Jackson, who singlehandedly blew away the Star Wars franchise, by revealing the richness and origins of the Star Wars mythology with LOTR. Instead of working on the depth of the mythos, which is what the fans are after, Lucas instead overwhelms us with superficial details--pod racers, giant fighting robots, wookies, talking lizards. By the time the film comes out, why bother? You've already seen it before, only louder and bigger.
...would not be able to be distributed, no? Or would something else happen to GPL software? (sorry, didn't finish post)
Or SCO for that matter? For companies in which Linux is allegedly a direct threat, having the GPL declared invalid is precisely what they want: for MS, everyone moves over to XP, for SCO, people buy more Unix licenses. All GPL software
...with Zinio , which gives you the exact duplicate of their printed page, with a kind of a pdf format which zooms in and out to fit your screen (handy for laptops). Some major magazines such as Business Week, PC Magazine and others are available; free samples are available.
This is the same guy who was shown Linux code and told it was stolen from SCO--he then parroted the same crap to help boost SCO's stock prices. This guy's on the opposite end of "tech expert"--please don't feed or publicize this troll.