Maybe you didn't play any PS1 games on your PS2, but nearly all of my friends did. One of my friends got hooked on my copy of FF9 and directly because of that, he went out and purchased FFX and FFX-2.
By definition, old games are...old. And crappy.
There are manywhowoulddisagree. I'm one of them. Classic games, by and large, are leagues better than the shiny 3D whiz-bang eyecandy that publishers shovel down the throats of consumers these days.
In any case, if I have a stack of old games, why wouldn't I still have the console?
Why would you want to keep an extra console hooked up and taking up space if your PS2 plays the old games even better? Let's also not forget that consoles break. The CD-ROM drive mechanism in PS1s (and PS2s for that matter) are notoriously fragile and are known to simply give up the ghost after a few years of moderate use. For crappily-built systems like these, backwards compatibility gives you a few more years at least before you have to resort to unfaithful emulations of your favorite games.
Wonderful. Not one post scored >= 3 actually talks about the content of the book.
Re:FreeBSD - Good server, bad desktop?
on
FreeBSD 5.2 Review
·
· Score: 1
Ah, I didn't realize you had a newer card.
As fate would have it, my GeForce 256 DDR happened to die (sorta) just last night, so I swapped it out with a Compaq OEM GeForce 2 MX 200. Handy, that. Didn't have to change a thing, software-wise. There's one advantage to a unified driver. Haven't had andy problems so far with the new card.
I think I downloaded the binary package from nVidia's website and used pkg_add to install it. It was quite a few months ago, but I remember it was quite easy. (Which is probably why I don't remember much.)
Re:FreeBSD - Good server, bad desktop?
on
FreeBSD 5.2 Review
·
· Score: 1
I've been using the nvidia binary drivers in FreeBSD for a year and haven't had a single problem. Maybe you should look into your configuration or downloading the latest drivers.
I see. Well, of course, this is just the sort of blinkered philistine pig-ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage. You sit there on your loathsome spotty behinds squeezing blackheads, not caring a tinker's cuss for the struggling social outcast. You excrement, you whining hypocritical toadies with your democratic PageRank algorithm and your trendy employee benefits and your bleeding holiday logos. You wouldn't let me join, would you, you blackballing bastards? Well I wouldn't become an Orkut member if you went down on your lousy stinking knees and begged me!...
But if any of you could put in a word for me I'd love to be in Orkut. Orkut opens doors. I'd be very quiet, I was a bit on edge just now but if I were in Orkut, I'd sit at the back and not get in anyone's way...
I would just think the 56K upload speed (I'm assuming this is rate) would drive me crazy.
33.6k, actually. Modems advertised at 56k (53k legal max) really only go that fast downstream due to the nature of the telephone system. That is, unless, they've made some kind of vast improvements in modem and telephone technology in the last 5 years that I haven't yet heard of.
The point of the project was to display the real first modern home PC revived twenty years after it's original conception.
You could have put it on a shelf like everyone else does. Or behind some glass with an informative little placard on it. Or even sold it for a decent chunk of change. I know that there are a few people out there that are willing to pay quite well for for an authentic 1984 Mac in good condition, even if it needed a bit of repair.
I have also played some excellent games of Tetris in my sleep, but that doesn't seem nearly as interesting.
I've run into a number of people now that have said this. Once, I was writing a tetris clone to hone my Tcl/Tk skills and during two weeks of intensive coding (for me), I played tetris in my dreams almost every single night. It really helped my actual Tetris playing too. I achieved high scores that I could have never gotten as a kid and haven't to this day been able me match.
Sixth of all, you live in the Mormon capital of Utah, where you can't even buy a decent beer or six to dull the unceasing stinging sensation that is your life.
I am not making this up: a few of the happiest people that I have ever met were those who had just moved out of Utah and finally gotten away from their crazy families and communities.
4.x is much faster than Mozilla. By a long shot. Its downfall, aside from having unmaintainable source code, was that it was unstable, did not follow any kind of standards, and had a tendency to screw up whatever *should* have worked right. I think Internet Explorer 1.0 is the only browser in existance to beat the general crappiness of Netscape 4.x.
Give me a slow and bloated, yet stable and standards-compliant web browser over the opposite (Netscape 4.x) any day.
Remember that knoppix is still a geek orientated distro. It is based on debian, has hundreds of apps with confusing labels. What is a mc, qtparted, rosegarden for example.
Without having to google, mc is a text-based filemanager (stands for Midnight Commander), qtparted sounds like a version of GNU parted with a Qt front-end, and rosegarden is a KDE MIDI sequencer.
You don't have Red Hat screaming, 4 month using *NIX wantabees asking stupid questions.
I can tell you've never subscribed to questions@freebsd.org.
Sorry, but the only reason you don't see at much n00bieism around FreeBSD is only because it's not nearly as much in the public eye as Linux is.
Sure, I used Linux for 5 years but now unfortunately, with the rise and perceived ease of use, we now have a whole new group of zealots and half witts.
I can remember the days when a person who owned a modem and dialed around to various bulletin boards was considered cool, mature, and intellectually superior to your garden variety computer geeks. But of course when the Internet started becoming more prevalent, bulletin boards started getting cast as low-tech and amateurish. Mid-90's: anything Linux was in, everything specifically non-Unix was out. Now it's the early 2000's and FreeBSD is the new geek fashion statement. Those who are just now jumping on the FreeBSD bandwagon are thumbing their noses down at Linux users and calling them names such as "zealots" and "half witts." (While we're here, I want the gentle reader to take a moment to ask who here is the real zealot?) New FreeBSD users are citing mostly the exact same reasons for using FreeBSD over Linux that Linux users cited for choosing Linux over Windows years ago, although they are now more subtle:
More reliable
More consistent
Better performance
Better development process
Freer license
Smarter developers
Smarter users
etc
Trust me, it will take only a few years before the Next Big Geek Trend comes along and FreeBSD will not be the playground of the elite-wannabes. Instead, it will be relegated as a hunk of code that showed definite signs of promise but was ultimately hampered by too many "n00bs" joining the FreeBSD community thereby spoiling it for everyone. Or perhaps by an archaic, inflexible, development system or crochety old too-conservative developers. The particular excuse doesn't matter, only the fact that it will have gone out of style. The next new thing will be there to take FreeBSD's place.
Don't think for a second that I don't love FreeBSD. I use it on my computers at home and have several patches on my todo list that I'd like to work on and submit to the FreeBSD developers when time permits. But I also use Linux and Windows on a regular basis as well. And I'm not going to sit here and lie to myself and others by saying that I wasn't totally infatuated with Linux and other geek trends in the past. That, I think, is the primary difference between an advocate and a zealot.
Interesting off-topic tidbit. Last semester I wrote a bit about classic arcade games and their culture for some cheesy writing class. When I was going through all of my high school writings a couple weeks ago I stumbled upon another paper that I wrote in the 11th grade (5 years ago... long story) which was on the same exact topic. I had completely forgotten about it. What's interesting is that several of the paragraphs were worded almost exactly the same. Truly scary.
However, yes, I am a big fan of reusing my previous work. No, I do not consider it plagiarism nor have I ever heard of any education institution claiming that reusing one's own work could be considered plagiarism. They quite clearly state that plagiarism is passing off someone else's work as your own. Any instructors or institutions that claim otherwise are just deliberately trying to be assholes.
I have the second-cheapest cross-shredder I could buy from WallyWorld (Yeah, I know, evil, but show me a Mom&Pop that carries cross-shredders). For USD$25, I end up with 0.25" by 1.5" confetti. Good luck putting that back together.
I believe I have the same paper cutter. On a whim, I once waited until the basket was full and then scooped out about 1/3 of the shreddings and spreaded them out on a table. I shredded nothing but plain white similar-looking documents. In about 45 minutes, I was able to piece 6 of them back together enough to get some useful information out of them. It would have been difficult, but not nearly impossible, for someone to piece *all* of the papers in the bin back together. If some of the pieces of paper were different color or had dinstinct patterns, it would be several orders of magnitude easier. And to think that they even have *software* these days that does this.
Simply put, you are not safe until your paper is either pulpified or shredded into very very tiny pieces (about the size of a large grain of rice).
My friend pointed out the car thing to me but I still didn't believe him. You couldn't "plainly" see it, all you could see was some dust or smoke. After a good hard look, I came to the conclusion that it was supposed to be CGI smoke from a chimney waaaaay off in the distance.
At any rate, I'm not sure if I like it or dislike it. Part of me enjoys being able to have 3 hours of film to properly tell a story; another part of me thinks that they intentionally pad the films to make them longer (as with LotR and the overly-emotional and excessive dialog at times);
Have you read the LoTR trilogy? If so, you should instead be amazed that they actually managed to fit 95% of the story into a mere 9 hours of dialogue and action and it was one of the best film-making achievements of all time.
That said, I believe that the director, Peter Jackson, never intended for the shorter theatrical cuts to be the "official versions" of the movies, contrary to standard Hollywood practice. (I have evidence to support this theory, but not the time to present it.) I'm actually going to see The Return of the King this weekend with my Wife, against my will. Why? Because, like you, I don't want to sit in the theatre for three hours just to see a downsized version. I'm a pretty patient person and I'd rather wait a year to see the "real" version on the extended DVD set so that I can watch the first 2-hour disc and then watch the other 2 hours the next night.
The solution, UNIX and Windows programmers can meet in Mac OS X and everyone wins. You get Mac programs playing well together in Applescript, UNIX programs in the shell, and "osascript -e" to tie it all together...
Sorry, in the first paragraph, that should have said Quake 2. Quake 1 ran very well on the system. (And I kept it around for years just because of that.)
Huh? Quake 1 was "playable" on my Pentium 100 with Pure3D Voodoo add-on accelerator and 24MB of RAM. I was envious of my friend at the time because it was, in fact, much smoother on his Pentium 266MMX with a similar video card.
And although I haven't played either in quite a while, my Althon 750 and first-generation nVidia GeForce 256 DDR does much better than "playable" in Q3, UT, and RTCW. Yours should too, if you have a similar video card.
So. The radio geeks don't like this innovative method of affordable broadband screwing up their radios. The expansion of the information superhighway will not halt for 20th-century technology. Why don't they just switch to VoIP?
Myth: Stopping new development for weeks or months to fix bugs is the best way to produce stable, polished software.
Reality: Stopping new development for awhile to find and fix unknown bugs is fine. That's only a part of writing good software.
I don't see too much disparity here between the "myth" and "reality".
The author was emphasizing the fact that feature freezes *alone* are not enough to ensure the quality of your software. They have their time and they have their place, but they *must* be used in concert with other good development practices in order to be effective.
BTW, the metaphor or whatever "osmosis" is trying to make a point is pretty silly. Osmosis is the transfer of water through a semipermeable membrane.
Err, I've been hearing this metaphor for as long as I can remember. "Learning by osmosis" is a figure of speech used to imply a method of learning whereby the knowledge comes more or less automatically as a side-effect of simply being submerged in the material. The best example I can think of is living in a foreign country to learn their language. The author was trying to illustrate the general futility of trying to understand a program's structure just by skimming its hundreds or thousands of lines of code.
Myth: Bad or unappealing code or projects should be thrown away completely.
Reality: Solving the same simple problems again and again wastes time that could be applied to solving new, larger problems.
This is again true for open and closed source projects. Go look at one of the windows (closed source) freeware/shareware depositories and you will find at least 5-10 programs that all do the same thing more or less. If these were open source projects, I would imagine that there would be a good amount of code reuse going on here.
I will say however, that UNIX (I'm generalizing that opensource is more of a UNIX like thing here) in general is a framework and our stuff plays well with one another. We have programs have STDOUT, and STDERR messages that are formatted for external processing and parsing, we have exit statuses in our programs so they can be &&ed and ||ed or test for their success or failure. We have signals, pipes, and sockets for IPC. Look at the number of opensource installs and the wide variety of things that they do and tell me that we are not solving a number of real problems well.
You both miss and prove the author's point at the same time. Unix is a framework, true enough. But the original intent of Unix (and I do mean original, as in "well before it was even called Unix") was as a development environment. Overtime it gradually became more flexible, hackers locked onto it and extended it in ways never dreamed and now, decades later we have an operating system whose design allows it to be used for almost anything from PDAs and embedded systems to the largest mainframes and clusters.
Open source software solves lots of real problems. That's the single reason that it's gaining so much ground these days. But there are a heck of a lot of projects out there that are essentially dead in the water because the developers are concentrating so much on the Next Big Thing rather than actually attempting to solve a problem. See the multitude of web content management projects as an example.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you didn't play any PS1 games on your PS2, but nearly all of my friends did. One of my friends got hooked on my copy of FF9 and directly because of that, he went out and purchased FFX and FFX-2.
By definition, old games are...old. And crappy.
There are many who would disagree. I'm one of them. Classic games, by and large, are leagues better than the shiny 3D whiz-bang eyecandy that publishers shovel down the throats of consumers these days.
In any case, if I have a stack of old games, why wouldn't I still have the console?
Why would you want to keep an extra console hooked up and taking up space if your PS2 plays the old games even better? Let's also not forget that consoles break. The CD-ROM drive mechanism in PS1s (and PS2s for that matter) are notoriously fragile and are known to simply give up the ghost after a few years of moderate use. For crappily-built systems like these, backwards compatibility gives you a few more years at least before you have to resort to unfaithful emulations of your favorite games.
Wonderful. Not one post scored >= 3 actually talks about the content of the book.
Ah, I didn't realize you had a newer card.
As fate would have it, my GeForce 256 DDR happened to die (sorta) just last night, so I swapped it out with a Compaq OEM GeForce 2 MX 200. Handy, that. Didn't have to change a thing, software-wise. There's one advantage to a unified driver. Haven't had andy problems so far with the new card.
I think I downloaded the binary package from nVidia's website and used pkg_add to install it. It was quite a few months ago, but I remember it was quite easy. (Which is probably why I don't remember much.)
I've been using the nvidia binary drivers in FreeBSD for a year and haven't had a single problem. Maybe you should look into your configuration or downloading the latest drivers.
Membership to orkut is by invitation only.
...
I see. Well, of course, this is just the sort of blinkered philistine pig-ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage. You sit there on your loathsome spotty behinds squeezing blackheads, not caring a tinker's cuss for the struggling social outcast. You excrement, you whining hypocritical toadies with your democratic PageRank algorithm and your trendy employee benefits and your bleeding holiday logos. You wouldn't let me join, would you, you blackballing bastards? Well I wouldn't become an Orkut member if you went down on your lousy stinking knees and begged me!
But if any of you could put in a word for me I'd love to be in Orkut. Orkut opens doors. I'd be very quiet, I was a bit on edge just now but if I were in Orkut, I'd sit at the back and not get in anyone's way...
I would just think the 56K upload speed (I'm assuming this is rate) would drive me crazy.
33.6k, actually. Modems advertised at 56k (53k legal max) really only go that fast downstream due to the nature of the telephone system. That is, unless, they've made some kind of vast improvements in modem and telephone technology in the last 5 years that I haven't yet heard of.
For those wondering how well this modder is taking the verbal slashdot beatings, take a look.
Conclusion: not well. Not well at all.
And to the parent: excellent use of the word "gubbins."
The point of the project was to display the real first modern home PC revived twenty years after it's original conception.
You could have put it on a shelf like everyone else does. Or behind some glass with an informative little placard on it. Or even sold it for a decent chunk of change. I know that there are a few people out there that are willing to pay quite well for for an authentic 1984 Mac in good condition, even if it needed a bit of repair.
Ditto for me, except I just hit reload, which made the referrer the same page that I was trying to visit.
I have also played some excellent games of Tetris in my sleep, but that doesn't seem nearly as interesting.
I've run into a number of people now that have said this. Once, I was writing a tetris clone to hone my Tcl/Tk skills and during two weeks of intensive coding (for me), I played tetris in my dreams almost every single night. It really helped my actual Tetris playing too. I achieved high scores that I could have never gotten as a kid and haven't to this day been able me match.
Obligatory link: http://free.house.cx/~eil/tktris.html
Sixth of all, you live in the Mormon capital of Utah, where you can't even buy a decent beer or six to dull the unceasing stinging sensation that is your life.
I am not making this up: a few of the happiest people that I have ever met were those who had just moved out of Utah and finally gotten away from their crazy families and communities.
4.x is much faster than Mozilla. By a long shot. Its downfall, aside from having unmaintainable source code, was that it was unstable, did not follow any kind of standards, and had a tendency to screw up whatever *should* have worked right. I think Internet Explorer 1.0 is the only browser in existance to beat the general crappiness of Netscape 4.x.
Give me a slow and bloated, yet stable and standards-compliant web browser over the opposite (Netscape 4.x) any day.
Remember that knoppix is still a geek orientated distro. It is based on debian, has hundreds of apps with confusing labels. What is a mc, qtparted, rosegarden for example.
Without having to google, mc is a text-based filemanager (stands for Midnight Commander), qtparted sounds like a version of GNU parted with a Qt front-end, and rosegarden is a KDE MIDI sequencer.
Next!
You don't have Red Hat screaming, 4 month using *NIX wantabees asking stupid questions.
I can tell you've never subscribed to questions@freebsd.org.
Sorry, but the only reason you don't see at much n00bieism around FreeBSD is only because it's not nearly as much in the public eye as Linux is.
Sure, I used Linux for 5 years but now unfortunately, with the rise and perceived ease of use, we now have a whole new group of zealots and half witts.
I can remember the days when a person who owned a modem and dialed around to various bulletin boards was considered cool, mature, and intellectually superior to your garden variety computer geeks. But of course when the Internet started becoming more prevalent, bulletin boards started getting cast as low-tech and amateurish. Mid-90's: anything Linux was in, everything specifically non-Unix was out. Now it's the early 2000's and FreeBSD is the new geek fashion statement. Those who are just now jumping on the FreeBSD bandwagon are thumbing their noses down at Linux users and calling them names such as "zealots" and "half witts." (While we're here, I want the gentle reader to take a moment to ask who here is the real zealot?) New FreeBSD users are citing mostly the exact same reasons for using FreeBSD over Linux that Linux users cited for choosing Linux over Windows years ago, although they are now more subtle:
Trust me, it will take only a few years before the Next Big Geek Trend comes along and FreeBSD will not be the playground of the elite-wannabes. Instead, it will be relegated as a hunk of code that showed definite signs of promise but was ultimately hampered by too many "n00bs" joining the FreeBSD community thereby spoiling it for everyone. Or perhaps by an archaic, inflexible, development system or crochety old too-conservative developers. The particular excuse doesn't matter, only the fact that it will have gone out of style. The next new thing will be there to take FreeBSD's place.
Don't think for a second that I don't love FreeBSD. I use it on my computers at home and have several patches on my todo list that I'd like to work on and submit to the FreeBSD developers when time permits. But I also use Linux and Windows on a regular basis as well. And I'm not going to sit here and lie to myself and others by saying that I wasn't totally infatuated with Linux and other geek trends in the past. That, I think, is the primary difference between an advocate and a zealot.
Interesting off-topic tidbit. Last semester I wrote a bit about classic arcade games and their culture for some cheesy writing class. When I was going through all of my high school writings a couple weeks ago I stumbled upon another paper that I wrote in the 11th grade (5 years ago... long story) which was on the same exact topic. I had completely forgotten about it. What's interesting is that several of the paragraphs were worded almost exactly the same. Truly scary.
However, yes, I am a big fan of reusing my previous work. No, I do not consider it plagiarism nor have I ever heard of any education institution claiming that reusing one's own work could be considered plagiarism. They quite clearly state that plagiarism is passing off someone else's work as your own. Any instructors or institutions that claim otherwise are just deliberately trying to be assholes.
Just a few short years ago a "power user" was anyone who downloaded a lot of shareware. My how times have changed.
Uh, X11 != XFree86, which this story is about.
I have the second-cheapest cross-shredder I could buy from WallyWorld (Yeah, I know, evil, but show me a Mom&Pop that carries cross-shredders). For USD$25, I end up with 0.25" by 1.5" confetti. Good luck putting that back together.
I believe I have the same paper cutter. On a whim, I once waited until the basket was full and then scooped out about 1/3 of the shreddings and spreaded them out on a table. I shredded nothing but plain white similar-looking documents. In about 45 minutes, I was able to piece 6 of them back together enough to get some useful information out of them. It would have been difficult, but not nearly impossible, for someone to piece *all* of the papers in the bin back together. If some of the pieces of paper were different color or had dinstinct patterns, it would be several orders of magnitude easier. And to think that they even have *software* these days that does this.
Simply put, you are not safe until your paper is either pulpified or shredded into very very tiny pieces (about the size of a large grain of rice).
My friend pointed out the car thing to me but I still didn't believe him. You couldn't "plainly" see it, all you could see was some dust or smoke. After a good hard look, I came to the conclusion that it was supposed to be CGI smoke from a chimney waaaaay off in the distance.
At any rate, I'm not sure if I like it or dislike it. Part of me enjoys being able to have 3 hours of film to properly tell a story; another part of me thinks that they intentionally pad the films to make them longer (as with LotR and the overly-emotional and excessive dialog at times);
Have you read the LoTR trilogy? If so, you should instead be amazed that they actually managed to fit 95% of the story into a mere 9 hours of dialogue and action and it was one of the best film-making achievements of all time.
That said, I believe that the director, Peter Jackson, never intended for the shorter theatrical cuts to be the "official versions" of the movies, contrary to standard Hollywood practice. (I have evidence to support this theory, but not the time to present it.) I'm actually going to see The Return of the King this weekend with my Wife, against my will. Why? Because, like you, I don't want to sit in the theatre for three hours just to see a downsized version. I'm a pretty patient person and I'd rather wait a year to see the "real" version on the extended DVD set so that I can watch the first 2-hour disc and then watch the other 2 hours the next night.
The solution, UNIX and Windows programmers can meet in Mac OS X and everyone wins. You get Mac programs playing well together in Applescript, UNIX programs in the shell, and "osascript -e" to tie it all together...
And in the darkness bind them...
Sorry, in the first paragraph, that should have said Quake 2. Quake 1 ran very well on the system. (And I kept it around for years just because of that.)
Huh? Quake 1 was "playable" on my Pentium 100 with Pure3D Voodoo add-on accelerator and 24MB of RAM. I was envious of my friend at the time because it was, in fact, much smoother on his Pentium 266MMX with a similar video card.
And although I haven't played either in quite a while, my Althon 750 and first-generation nVidia GeForce 256 DDR does much better than "playable" in Q3, UT, and RTCW. Yours should too, if you have a similar video card.
So. The radio geeks don't like this innovative method of affordable broadband screwing up their radios. The expansion of the information superhighway will not halt for 20th-century technology. Why don't they just switch to VoIP?
Myth: Stopping new development for weeks or months to fix bugs is the best way to produce stable, polished software.
Reality: Stopping new development for awhile to find and fix unknown bugs is fine. That's only a part of writing good software.
I don't see too much disparity here between the "myth" and "reality".
The author was emphasizing the fact that feature freezes *alone* are not enough to ensure the quality of your software. They have their time and they have their place, but they *must* be used in concert with other good development practices in order to be effective.
BTW, the metaphor or whatever "osmosis" is trying to make a point is pretty silly. Osmosis is the transfer of water through a semipermeable membrane.
Err, I've been hearing this metaphor for as long as I can remember. "Learning by osmosis" is a figure of speech used to imply a method of learning whereby the knowledge comes more or less automatically as a side-effect of simply being submerged in the material. The best example I can think of is living in a foreign country to learn their language. The author was trying to illustrate the general futility of trying to understand a program's structure just by skimming its hundreds or thousands of lines of code.
Myth: Bad or unappealing code or projects should be thrown away completely.
Reality: Solving the same simple problems again and again wastes time that could be applied to solving new, larger problems.
This is again true for open and closed source projects. Go look at one of the windows (closed source) freeware/shareware depositories and you will find at least 5-10 programs that all do the same thing more or less. If these were open source projects, I would imagine that there would be a good amount of code reuse going on here.
You imagine incorrectly.
I will say however, that UNIX (I'm generalizing that opensource is more of a UNIX like thing here) in general is a framework and our stuff plays well with one another. We have programs have STDOUT, and STDERR messages that are formatted for external processing and parsing, we have exit statuses in our programs so they can be &&ed and ||ed or test for their success or failure. We have signals, pipes, and sockets for IPC. Look at the number of opensource installs and the wide variety of things that they do and tell me that we are not solving a number of real problems well.
You both miss and prove the author's point at the same time. Unix is a framework, true enough. But the original intent of Unix (and I do mean original, as in "well before it was even called Unix") was as a development environment. Overtime it gradually became more flexible, hackers locked onto it and extended it in ways never dreamed and now, decades later we have an operating system whose design allows it to be used for almost anything from PDAs and embedded systems to the largest mainframes and clusters.
Open source software solves lots of real problems. That's the single reason that it's gaining so much ground these days. But there are a heck of a lot of projects out there that are essentially dead in the water because the developers are concentrating so much on the Next Big Thing rather than actually attempting to solve a problem. See the multitude of web content management projects as an example.