I'm all for this kind of experiments, but unless they are able to get above a critical volume and sell for profit and continue to develop the product, the project will die after some time. Either because the funders get fed up pouring money into the project, or because other standards will take over.
A better approach may be to design and sell a cheap computer for the industrialised world to get the volume up. They could then set aside part of the production, and sell it for low-profit prices in the third world.
Unless the price/feature ratio is good enough for the rich world, it won't be good enough for the poor one either.
I cannot understand that any school is ever allowed to install MS Office. For homework this directly encourages the students to pirate a copy (bad) or buy a copy (worse, as it is a gives money to a company, which doesn't deserve it in this case).
A school should by law go for the cheapest acceptable solution that all students can use at home, regardless of if they have Windows, Mac or Linux.
I like MS Office myself, and I would not recommend a commercial private business to change to OO, but public education is a completely different matter.
at any given time there are at least a half-dozen local schools, colleges and community outreach servives offering courses and certification programs for MS Office workers. marketable skills in a very tough environment, and a reliable source of income for those providing the training. at ground level, knowing OpenOffice.org doesn't open any doors.
Well, I'm sure you that if you are an expert OpenOffice user, you can easily become a trainer of MS Office.
If I were to employ an MS Office trainer, I would much prefer a good trainer who knows a similar product than a bad trainer, who knows the real thing.
why would people have any incentive to remain Christian?
An answer to that question was given years ago by
Richard Dawkins.
Follow the link. It's worth it. If you are too lazy a very short (and somewhat distorted) summary is:
* Religions cannot be mainly about truth, as the vast majority of people keep their parents' religion. If it had been about truth, religions would have spread more easily without the help of tradition.
* Religions are ideas that propagate through contact, as viruses. A stronger "virus" in this sense, is one which claims to be the only way to salvation, because it frightens people into not choosing other alternatives.
It's so deliciously ironic to see someone holding the "my time is precious" view... on Slashdot.
You are right of course. But you do not know why each of us reads and writes on Slashdot. It may be because we are collecting material for our sociology thesis, or because we try to find converts for a shady religious sect. Or just for the fun of it, which is as precious as anything in life.
Are you a regular guy that would be doing something else completely unproductive otherwise?
I actually don't mind if people who like fiddling with things choose to play with computer parts. However, I do mind when people tell everyone to spend time doing something many of us don't like, just to save money, and that's what the grand-parent poster did.
If you spend time selecting computers parts, not because you like it, but because you can imagine nothing else to do, you have a much more serious problem.
Does anyone know where the bulk of old computers go? There must be millions of computers that are discarded in the economically rich part of the world each year, because they are "out of date". Is there no program to sell them cheap to people in the third world?
To me there would be a clear case of market economy here: rich company wants to throw away computers. Poor school in third world desperately needs computers, and is willing to pay an amount > 0.
What is the main bottle neck? Shipping costs? Even for laptops? Security risks with data on old harddisks? It cannot be support or licencing issues, as the locals often surely would be more than willing to use a free OS, which they support themselves.
Can we just check that their system is being designed to the following standards ?
Customer: They didn't mention it, but I'm sure it must be included.
And that is why it is so important to have reference customers. Nothing beats telling a customer: "Those are people who have used us in the past, and who are willing to tell you directly that they are happy with us. Do you know anyone who is happy with the guys who say they can build the system for nothing in no time?"
The most irritating thing is not that the battery life is short, but that the counter isn't reliable. I've been working with "1 hour" left on my PB, and it suddenly goes to sleep and refuses to wake up, before I recharge it.
Hello, mr Polly Parrot! I've got some fresh bananas for you! Awakey-wakey!
A system that allows the user to commit "user errors" with serious consequences is not a good system. I know it is not always possible to protect the users from silly mistakes, but the higher the proportion of users who do things which have unexpected bad consequences, the worse the system is.
I obviously wasn't clear enough for everyone to understand my point.
The point is: this is not simple.
The parent poster claimed it was simple. I say it is not.
I was fully aware of the judge's motivations. However, a case involving free speech where we will have to trust that the judge in charge is "pretty smart" is slightly worrying. No, I did not write "incredibly horrendously worrying". I wrote "slightly worrying". Or, using my original wording: "I firmly disagree that it was a simple case."
While I do agree with you that the ruling in this case probably was correct, I firmly disagree that it was a simple case.
The ruling means that I cannot go to a journalist with suspicions that my current employer may use illegal methods. It probably means that I cannot go to a journalist even if I am absolutely certain my employer uses illegal methods, because it would be illegal of me to disclose that my company behaves illegally. On the other hand, it is illegal not to denounce criminals... Oh, well, I guess I could go to the police.
But what if my company's practices are perfectly legal, but highly immoral? (They may for example use sweat shops in poor countries or buy material from sweat shops or pollute poor countries in desperate need of cash.) I cannot go to the police with that information, because the police doesn't care about immoral behaviour, as long as one doesn't break the law. And with this ruling, I cannot alert the press either, because the press will have to disclose who gave them information, which my company considered secret.
In the case with Apple, the law worked well, but it is by no way certain that we will like that it is interpeted this way next time.
Even though the original article in no way is a clear and fully correct analysis of what is going on in OSS, there may be some truth to it.
For how many years has Linux been promoted as a desktop system that "very, very soon" will take a big leap? How big a percentage of the client market does Linux actually have today?
There must be a reason that it just seems to never take off (or rather, that it is in a constant state of taking off, but never gets into the air). TFA may point to one crucial problem: too few developers who care about non geek users.
And no, I do not think it is the only problem, but I would think it is as important as many others.
Only a coward would suggest that one has to stay in a job that isn't fulfilling. You have only one life, and wasting it with a so-so job would be completely idiotic and probably the one thing you regret in 50 years' time.
If you quit your job, some things in your life will inevitably change, some for the better and some for the worse. If you don't quit, you will know for 100% sure that it won't get any better.
That said, it is of course up to each one to judge when a job is bad enough to quit, and how good or bad the prospects are for something different.
I know a geek who got tired of a well paid job at IBM and became a carpenter. Never regretted it for a minute. Personally, I would not like that at all, but as said, we are all different.
Well, read the following, and tell me that you immediately spot the genius in it:
"Burniface, shiply efter, shoply after, at an angle of lag, let flow,
brabble brabble and brabble, and so hostily, heavyside breathing, came up with them and, check me joule, shot the three tailors, butting back to Moyle herring, bump as beam and buttend, roller and reiter, after the diluv's own deluge, the seasant samped as skibber breezed in, tripping, dripping, threw the sheets in the wind, the tights of his trunks at tickle to tackle and his rubmelucky truss rehorsing the pouffed skirts of his overhawl."
It is from Finnegans Wake, one of the absolute classics of the 20th century. I'm sure some people would have believed Joyce, if he had explained that he wrote deliberately bad.
The general concept is that people who write 'good' stories regularly, as well as journalists, editors, and posibly even critics, can at least recognize when something has been written poorly.
That's a very broad statement. I'd like to modify it to "Professionals within the publishing industry have a higher than average ability to recognise good literature."
Nevertheless, they very often make mistakes, and sometimes they will take chances in order to possibly discover unknown talents with unusual styles.
...publishing house pretty much deserves the reputation it is going to get.
I definitely agree with that. We should all face the consequences of our actions. However, I doubt that PublishAmerica will loose any reputation among serious people in the publishing industry because of this.
...the blatent misuse of the English language. That cannot be overlooked.
I'm actually not sure you are right there. The editors I have had contact with have often insisted on changes. I once was in a ten minute telephone conversation over a comma with a magazine editor. If a manuscript is generally good, an editor will not refuse it because of bad spelling or grammar, as that can be fixed.
In the quoted story it is also possible that the editor would accept some of the formal errors as part of the "style", but that is difficult to say.
Your spelling of "blatant" is a good example of an unfortunate typo, which does not diminish the value of the rest of your feedback.
I cannot see the point with this. It is difficult to write good literature. Everyone agrees on that. If it had been easy to say what's good in literature, everyone would have written master pieces.
Here are some people who put a lot of effort into a book. Someone else realises that a lot of effort has been put in there, and that it is highly original. That the intent of the effort was to "be bad" was not obvious, because the writers simply did not know what "bad" was in the eyes of the reviewer.
Your book does not automatically become very bad because you claim that you intended it to be bad, as little as it becomes very good, if you intend it to be good.
No one can with any confidence tell what makes a book good, and no one knows for certain what makes a book a bestseller.
There is no joke here - it is simply an illustration to what has been known for a long time.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm all for this kind of experiments, but unless they are able to get above a critical volume and sell for profit and continue to develop the product, the project will die after some time. Either because the funders get fed up pouring money into the project, or because other standards will take over. A better approach may be to design and sell a cheap computer for the industrialised world to get the volume up. They could then set aside part of the production, and sell it for low-profit prices in the third world. Unless the price/feature ratio is good enough for the rich world, it won't be good enough for the poor one either.
A school should by law go for the cheapest acceptable solution that all students can use at home, regardless of if they have Windows, Mac or Linux.
I like MS Office myself, and I would not recommend a commercial private business to change to OO, but public education is a completely different matter.
Well, I'm sure you that if you are an expert OpenOffice user, you can easily become a trainer of MS Office.
If I were to employ an MS Office trainer, I would much prefer a good trainer who knows a similar product than a bad trainer, who knows the real thing.
An answer to that question was given years ago by Richard Dawkins.
Follow the link. It's worth it. If you are too lazy a very short (and somewhat distorted) summary is:
* Religions cannot be mainly about truth, as the vast majority of people keep their parents' religion. If it had been about truth, religions would have spread more easily without the help of tradition.
* Religions are ideas that propagate through contact, as viruses. A stronger "virus" in this sense, is one which claims to be the only way to salvation, because it frightens people into not choosing other alternatives.
You are right of course. But you do not know why each of us reads and writes on Slashdot. It may be because we are collecting material for our sociology thesis, or because we try to find converts for a shady religious sect. Or just for the fun of it, which is as precious as anything in life.
I actually don't mind if people who like fiddling with things choose to play with computer parts. However, I do mind when people tell everyone to spend time doing something many of us don't like, just to save money, and that's what the grand-parent poster did.
If you spend time selecting computers parts, not because you like it, but because you can imagine nothing else to do, you have a much more serious problem.
It's much cheaper to buy them in parts
Never ever buy PCs in parts. It is much quicker to buy retail. Time is worth much more than money.
That was the most excellent link so far in this thread. Thanks a million!
To me there would be a clear case of market economy here: rich company wants to throw away computers. Poor school in third world desperately needs computers, and is willing to pay an amount > 0.
What is the main bottle neck? Shipping costs? Even for laptops? Security risks with data on old harddisks? It cannot be support or licencing issues, as the locals often surely would be more than willing to use a free OS, which they support themselves.
Customer: They didn't mention it, but I'm sure it must be included.
And that is why it is so important to have reference customers. Nothing beats telling a customer: "Those are people who have used us in the past, and who are willing to tell you directly that they are happy with us. Do you know anyone who is happy with the guys who say they can build the system for nothing in no time?"
Hello, mr Polly Parrot! I've got some fresh bananas for you! Awakey-wakey!
Pun probably intended. Fiddling, fiddle, violin, viola...
(il la viola)
But seriously, who still uses passé simple? It's simply so out of date.
A system that allows the user to commit "user errors" with serious consequences is not a good system. I know it is not always possible to protect the users from silly mistakes, but the higher the proportion of users who do things which have unexpected bad consequences, the worse the system is.
You are right, though, that those posts of mine hardly have been wonders of clarity and sharp argumentation.
Neither is this one. Why break an old habit?
The point is: this is not simple. The parent poster claimed it was simple. I say it is not.
I was fully aware of the judge's motivations. However, a case involving free speech where we will have to trust that the judge in charge is "pretty smart" is slightly worrying. No, I did not write "incredibly horrendously worrying". I wrote "slightly worrying". Or, using my original wording: "I firmly disagree that it was a simple case."
The ruling means that I cannot go to a journalist with suspicions that my current employer may use illegal methods. It probably means that I cannot go to a journalist even if I am absolutely certain my employer uses illegal methods, because it would be illegal of me to disclose that my company behaves illegally. On the other hand, it is illegal not to denounce criminals... Oh, well, I guess I could go to the police.
But what if my company's practices are perfectly legal, but highly immoral? (They may for example use sweat shops in poor countries or buy material from sweat shops or pollute poor countries in desperate need of cash.) I cannot go to the police with that information, because the police doesn't care about immoral behaviour, as long as one doesn't break the law. And with this ruling, I cannot alert the press either, because the press will have to disclose who gave them information, which my company considered secret.
In the case with Apple, the law worked well, but it is by no way certain that we will like that it is interpeted this way next time.
For how many years has Linux been promoted as a desktop system that "very, very soon" will take a big leap? How big a percentage of the client market does Linux actually have today?
There must be a reason that it just seems to never take off (or rather, that it is in a constant state of taking off, but never gets into the air). TFA may point to one crucial problem: too few developers who care about non geek users.
And no, I do not think it is the only problem, but I would think it is as important as many others.
If you quit your job, some things in your life will inevitably change, some for the better and some for the worse. If you don't quit, you will know for 100% sure that it won't get any better.
That said, it is of course up to each one to judge when a job is bad enough to quit, and how good or bad the prospects are for something different.
I know a geek who got tired of a well paid job at IBM and became a carpenter. Never regretted it for a minute. Personally, I would not like that at all, but as said, we are all different.
This guy is a poet! Read his other postings. They are all highly recommended for anyone looking for a good laugh.
So you hate "the French" because of a percentage?
"Burniface, shiply efter, shoply after, at an angle of lag, let flow, brabble brabble and brabble, and so hostily, heavyside breathing, came up with them and, check me joule, shot the three tailors, butting back to Moyle herring, bump as beam and buttend, roller and reiter, after the diluv's own deluge, the seasant samped as skibber breezed in, tripping, dripping, threw the sheets in the wind, the tights of his trunks at tickle to tackle and his rubmelucky truss rehorsing the pouffed skirts of his overhawl."
It is from Finnegans Wake, one of the absolute classics of the 20th century. I'm sure some people would have believed Joyce, if he had explained that he wrote deliberately bad.
That's a very broad statement. I'd like to modify it to "Professionals within the publishing industry have a higher than average ability to recognise good literature."
Nevertheless, they very often make mistakes, and sometimes they will take chances in order to possibly discover unknown talents with unusual styles.
I definitely agree with that. We should all face the consequences of our actions. However, I doubt that PublishAmerica will loose any reputation among serious people in the publishing industry because of this.
I'm actually not sure you are right there. The editors I have had contact with have often insisted on changes. I once was in a ten minute telephone conversation over a comma with a magazine editor. If a manuscript is generally good, an editor will not refuse it because of bad spelling or grammar, as that can be fixed.
In the quoted story it is also possible that the editor would accept some of the formal errors as part of the "style", but that is difficult to say.
Your spelling of "blatant" is a good example of an unfortunate typo, which does not diminish the value of the rest of your feedback.
I cannot see the point with this. It is difficult to write good literature. Everyone agrees on that. If it had been easy to say what's good in literature, everyone would have written master pieces. Here are some people who put a lot of effort into a book. Someone else realises that a lot of effort has been put in there, and that it is highly original. That the intent of the effort was to "be bad" was not obvious, because the writers simply did not know what "bad" was in the eyes of the reviewer. Your book does not automatically become very bad because you claim that you intended it to be bad, as little as it becomes very good, if you intend it to be good. No one can with any confidence tell what makes a book good, and no one knows for certain what makes a book a bestseller. There is no joke here - it is simply an illustration to what has been known for a long time.
Oh, behave! You're both really pretty. Can I get an autographed photo of the two of you?