It's good to read of the fruits on another person's life's work, and I appreciate the effort and good intentions of the intelligent people who make these "When did the universe begin" and "When does life begin" and "Physics geeks say your math is off" arguments.
It's also disappointingly typical of many scientist, though, to doggedly pursue an answer without a sound, logical question, or in this case, a question based on theories with fundamental flaws.
If you insist on linear thinking and pursue the beginning of everything, you duck the question of what was there before the beginning. If everything started somewhere at some time, logically it must have had a place to start in. Is that what you're telling us? Can you give an accurate address of a home by listing the city but not the state?
We can't make sense of the question's premise so we decide that's a kind of science we can't comprehend but we'll proceed with the question anyway. Worry about the details later... when the latest theory is disproved by another scientist's bold assertion, or by revelations that much of what this kind of science asserts as fact is not factual.
It's not unlike the scientists who once believed the earth was flat. In this case, we seem to believe in a linear universe, and for some reason, we feel a need to attach another troubled concept -- time -- to this belief. And we accept it.
Hey,
I'm a former Windows hack. You know, the kind that has been building PCs for awhile and has whined about Microsoft and Apple for years, but who would never take the time to find out about Linux. Well, I finally looked deeper in May, and now I am a convert, and very pleased about it.
Anyway, I decided to make an investment and buy Suse Professional 9.1, and I found it extremely easy to install and use. For comparison, I just switched hard drives and loaded the Fedora 1 core, and I like that as well, for different reasons.
I don't think either should be dismissed in any respect. I found Suse to be much, much easier to load, mostly because it seems to be built for Windows converts. It may also have helped that it was the AMD-64 version and I have a new 3200-64-bit AMD processor coupled with MSI's new NEO Platinum Gforce3 250 pro board. It took me four installs to get Fedora running, in part due to my inexperience with Linux, I suppose.
My larger complaint with Fedora 1 is with its newbie-unfriendly partitioning system - at least as compared with Suse's. I am not the "average" Windows user, so I figured it out fairly easily, but that's an obstacle that should be corrected if Red Hat/Fedora wants to attract Windows users.
My only real complaint with Suse is that it won't natively support my Microsoft Intellimouse wireless mouse, which, IMHO, is better for Photoshop users than any other. It is true that I am not using Fedora Core 2, or the 64 version, so I can't truly judge the lastest distro, but from what I've just read on this board, it seems to have many of the same problems as Fedora 1. Also, I Suse automatically loads KDE, so perhaps, as some have suggested, the differences are in part due to the desktops used.
So if I am asked how a Windows user should convert, and to which distro, it's an easy choice: Suse. I can find a workaround for the mouse problem. But I am going to keep both versions for further evaluation - that is, if I can figure out how to make Fedora allow a second Linux system. When loading, Fedora seems to prefer that you uninstall other Linux systems (while Suse tells you how to configure all of your OSes at install).
One last thought, re: Windows users migrating. Based on my experience, I can't see why a Windows user would NOT migrate, and I don't think it will be a huge problem changing OSes, as some suggest. It may be a bit harder for some than it was for me, but the new distros seem to be making it more and more easy.
If Linux developers really want to make this great OS most attractive and easy for converts, I have one suggestion: get as far away from the command line as possible, and, in doing so, make the apps easier to run immediately, without compiling, commands, mounts, etc. The idea should be to get people easily away from Windows, not make advanced users out of the "Average Joe." I have no doubt that Linux will rock most desktops away from Microsoft. If nothing else, it will give Gates and company the competition that they've never really had, and force them to get off of their butts and make a better product.
Slashdot Mirror
It's good to read of the fruits on another person's life's work, and I appreciate the effort and good intentions of the intelligent people who make these "When did the universe begin" and "When does life begin" and "Physics geeks say your math is off" arguments.
... when the latest theory is disproved by another scientist's bold assertion, or by revelations that much of what this kind of science asserts as fact is not factual.
It's also disappointingly typical of many scientist, though, to doggedly pursue an answer without a sound, logical question, or in this case, a question based on theories with fundamental flaws.
If you insist on linear thinking and pursue the beginning of everything, you duck the question of what was there before the beginning. If everything started somewhere at some time, logically it must have had a place to start in. Is that what you're telling us? Can you give an accurate address of a home by listing the city but not the state?
We can't make sense of the question's premise so we decide that's a kind of science we can't comprehend but we'll proceed with the question anyway. Worry about the details later
It's not unlike the scientists who once believed the earth was flat. In this case, we seem to believe in a linear universe, and for some reason, we feel a need to attach another troubled concept -- time -- to this belief. And we accept it.
Hey, I'm a former Windows hack. You know, the kind that has been building PCs for awhile and has whined about Microsoft and Apple for years, but who would never take the time to find out about Linux. Well, I finally looked deeper in May, and now I am a convert, and very pleased about it. Anyway, I decided to make an investment and buy Suse Professional 9.1, and I found it extremely easy to install and use. For comparison, I just switched hard drives and loaded the Fedora 1 core, and I like that as well, for different reasons. I don't think either should be dismissed in any respect. I found Suse to be much, much easier to load, mostly because it seems to be built for Windows converts. It may also have helped that it was the AMD-64 version and I have a new 3200-64-bit AMD processor coupled with MSI's new NEO Platinum Gforce3 250 pro board. It took me four installs to get Fedora running, in part due to my inexperience with Linux, I suppose. My larger complaint with Fedora 1 is with its newbie-unfriendly partitioning system - at least as compared with Suse's. I am not the "average" Windows user, so I figured it out fairly easily, but that's an obstacle that should be corrected if Red Hat/Fedora wants to attract Windows users. My only real complaint with Suse is that it won't natively support my Microsoft Intellimouse wireless mouse, which, IMHO, is better for Photoshop users than any other. It is true that I am not using Fedora Core 2, or the 64 version, so I can't truly judge the lastest distro, but from what I've just read on this board, it seems to have many of the same problems as Fedora 1. Also, I Suse automatically loads KDE, so perhaps, as some have suggested, the differences are in part due to the desktops used. So if I am asked how a Windows user should convert, and to which distro, it's an easy choice: Suse. I can find a workaround for the mouse problem. But I am going to keep both versions for further evaluation - that is, if I can figure out how to make Fedora allow a second Linux system. When loading, Fedora seems to prefer that you uninstall other Linux systems (while Suse tells you how to configure all of your OSes at install). One last thought, re: Windows users migrating. Based on my experience, I can't see why a Windows user would NOT migrate, and I don't think it will be a huge problem changing OSes, as some suggest. It may be a bit harder for some than it was for me, but the new distros seem to be making it more and more easy. If Linux developers really want to make this great OS most attractive and easy for converts, I have one suggestion: get as far away from the command line as possible, and, in doing so, make the apps easier to run immediately, without compiling, commands, mounts, etc. The idea should be to get people easily away from Windows, not make advanced users out of the "Average Joe." I have no doubt that Linux will rock most desktops away from Microsoft. If nothing else, it will give Gates and company the competition that they've never really had, and force them to get off of their butts and make a better product.