Not necessarily quirks. I've used XP, 2000, 98, 95, 3.1, and Vista, and I dislike Vista from a non-performance stance (as well as performance). And I've used Linux and Mac OS (and dislike Mac from a non-performance stance as well).
But it IS true that people jump on the bandwagon of hate (tm), and true that the hardware thing is... annoying. Install KDE 4 on bad hardware and then complain about the performance of KDE... heh.
As opposed to, hm, Apple, which definitely does not want to benefit primarily Apple customers. Which is why iTunes has been released for Linux... ??
Plus, open source people definitely want, primarily, to benefit people that don't use open source.
Seriously. What business DOESN'T want to bring better value to their customers? If your object is to benefit people that aren't your customers, your company (or your investors) won't last long.
If you're going to flame Microsoft, do it on good grounds.
Does that mean it's actually certified to drive, or just fits within the lane and all that? I'd feel kinda scared if there was a plane next to me on the freeway.
But this would be more akin to the government claiming the right to tell you exactly how you can (and, by implication, how you can't) drive in your car, anywhere, for any purpose.
So if someone drives the way they are told they can, and hits me, does this mean the government is responsible? They claimed the right to be the sole authority of how people can drive...
Basically, my point is that the right to authorize use is similar to responsibility for how it is used under that authorization.
They want to keep the rights to how it is used? Hm. Does that mean they are responsible for how it is used, then? If someone uses it "wrong" and "hurts" me, does that mean I can sue the developer, since he is the one in charge of how it is used?
The Hobbit is more of a child's book, granted (LOTR was originally going to be a sequel to The Hobbit but turned out to be longer, deeper, and "darker"), but Tolkien is not second-rate. And yes, it's Tolkien. If you can't spell his name correctly, I question your ability to criticize his work.
Tolkien may not have been the best story teller, though I would hold that he is excellent; what draws me to his works is the extreme depth and development. It is like a contemporary rock song compared to a Beethoven symphony. The rock song may sound really cool, but Beethoven's symphony is far deeper and far more developed that a surface-shiny composition.
IMO, Harry Potter is actually more surface-shiny. Tolkien had the mythical history of Middle-Earth more or less figured out by the time LOTR was published to the extent that some of the languages are fully functional (Quenya and Sindarin especially).
There is nothing second rate about Tolkien, except perhaps to a world of small attention spans and desire for quick (and cheap) thrills...
I'm still not entirely convinced. Does that mean if I see a demo movie of a game running full graphics, buy it, and it doesn't run that way on MY computer, that I can sue?
OTOH, I am against the fad to warn about absolutely everything. Seriously, you don't really have to warn me that the coffee is hot, I know that. And seriously, you don't need to warn me that if the minimum requirements may not run the flashy new things, I know that too. I realized when I bought Half-Life 2 that my older computer and Radeon 9800 was not going to be able to run it full graphics, and that before I got an 8800 I wouldn't be able to run Crysis full graphics or even full physics.
IMO, it primarily comes down to people not usin their heads enough, unless Microsoft actually claimed something WOULD run on the minimum requirements and it doesn't. If they actually said that Aero will run on the minimum requirements and it physically doesn't, then that's false advertising. If it does but not "well," then that may be really annoying and ethically bleah, but I'm not sure it'd be false advertising.
Why not? Think of it... NASA endorsement and advertising. Sure, maybe a major game studio isn't going to, but if people are willing to work on, say, open source projects where you pretty much won't make any money and never will, why wouldn't a relatively new game company try to work on it and get their name out there in a big way?
It would be like an unknown composer (like me) getting to work gratis on a video produced by a major video studio. You don't get money, but you get your name out there in a big way, and if you do WELL, it would do wonders for future job contracts.
I really don't understand the minimum requirements.
If you play Crysis with a computer that matched the "minimum requirements" list you'd... well, the program would RUN.
And Vista RUNS. What exactly does a minimum requirement specify then? As far as I understand, it's what is actually required to run the actual program, not even necessarily run it enough to work with it well.
I don't like Vista even though I generally tend to be on the defend-XP side - but really, the double standard between minimum requirements for Microsoft and minimum requirements for any other product is frustrating.
But then, any anti-Microsoft comment on Slashdot typically gets modded up as insightful or interesting, even if it's redundant.
And, by the way, having everyone switch to Linux won't help that much. Linux is easy for computer nerds/techies to use. Windows is a ton easier for a lot of people, and it's not just what you're used to, it's getting your wireless card, sound card, or video card to work right. Windows does it, Linux doesn't always.:)
Ah, but we were speaking of two different ideas. He said that it DOES smell bad, therefore probably is bad; I said that it doesn't necessarily smell bad. I was attacking his premise, not his conclusion.
I would like to see someone attempt to keep 80 Helm's Deeps safe as opposed to 1 Helm's Deep safe... obviously, it failed, but that's because I am going along with your analogy and it was doomed to fail, hehe.
Seriously, having redundancy is a very good thing, but if you are too redundant, it is way easier. If you have 50 shaded windows that people try to look in, it's a lot easier to monitor than if you have 200 windows that you try to monitor (and make sure all the defenses are safe, etc).
I'd also ask, Ubuntu itself is perhaps not the best choice. I actually found Ubuntu harder to use and troubleshoot on my various computers than SuSE.
The lack of software is a huge issue... e.g., ipod, audio production, etc. It seems Linux people are way more interested in making it "cool" than functional or something. Another thing is, for example, presentation software. OpenOffice is pretty good, but when it comes to competing with PowerPoint? I am still having trouble getting a sound file to work with it, having to go through Java is pretty annoying (and a bit slow).
*waits for flame mods*:) - Please note: this is posted on a Dell E1505 running SuSE 10.3 and Firefox...
I think the racial sensitivity that you might be describing can be observed in the summary: "African Americans" and "whites."
Apparently, I, being a white, am less American than one of African descent?
I dunno. If you're going to give people the "dignity" of being called a proper name like "African American," why can't I be called a "Swedish American?"
If I'm called white, I find it entirely fair to call someone black. Frankly, I have no problem with either one, and I have black friends at college (which is primarily a white middle-class school). Of course, so is the demographic of where the school is located, so that makes sense.
*sigh* Racism, these days, seems to mean that you're not giving a *perceived* minority group what they want... no matter what the minority group is. Even "whites."
(interestingly, I think of eggs when I read "whites")
As far as I recall, asbestos is really only dangerous to human lungs because, when "disturbed" in an open air environment, it disperses into rather tiny particles that annoy your lungs rather severely.
I'm not sure entirely what relevance that has to a water environment, except that it seems fish's gills work significantly differently than human lungs.
The automatic shade of "It's not really as good as it seems" is interesting. Anyway, of course it's not an absolute solution, but is there any reason not to use it?
We still use paper, even though we have digital stuff, too. I don't see why we should make paper insanely expensive simply to push towards going entirely digital (or something like that).
If there's a huge deposit of oil in US... well, hopefully there is no endangered snail that has to live on that huge plot of land.:)
Also, regarding your subject line, I am not sure anyone is quite as stupid as you would make them out to be, that we have found an infinite supply of oil that will make us independence forever. Is your point that since it's not a renewable resource, we shouldn't pursue it at all, or use it to get partially energy independent while working on securing energy independence in other ways?
Slashdot Mirror
After SP1... as opposed to most software, where version 1.0 is really, really good. which is why SuSE Linux is only on version 2. Wait.. 10.3? Oh.
Not necessarily quirks. I've used XP, 2000, 98, 95, 3.1, and Vista, and I dislike Vista from a non-performance stance (as well as performance). And I've used Linux and Mac OS (and dislike Mac from a non-performance stance as well).
But it IS true that people jump on the bandwagon of hate (tm), and true that the hardware thing is ... annoying. Install KDE 4 on bad hardware and then complain about the performance of KDE... heh.
As opposed to, hm, Apple, which definitely does not want to benefit primarily Apple customers. Which is why iTunes has been released for Linux... ??
Plus, open source people definitely want, primarily, to benefit people that don't use open source.
Seriously. What business DOESN'T want to bring better value to their customers? If your object is to benefit people that aren't your customers, your company (or your investors) won't last long.
If you're going to flame Microsoft, do it on good grounds.
Mmmm not really, does it? Lots of things are relased under a GNU License, but Gnome is specific software relased under it.
While the main link is apparently slashdotted, there is also this site, apparently the official Terrafugia site: http://www.terrafugia.com/vehicle.html
Does that mean it's actually certified to drive, or just fits within the lane and all that? I'd feel kinda scared if there was a plane next to me on the freeway.
But this would be more akin to the government claiming the right to tell you exactly how you can (and, by implication, how you can't) drive in your car, anywhere, for any purpose.
So if someone drives the way they are told they can, and hits me, does this mean the government is responsible? They claimed the right to be the sole authority of how people can drive...
Basically, my point is that the right to authorize use is similar to responsibility for how it is used under that authorization.
They want to keep the rights to how it is used? Hm. Does that mean they are responsible for how it is used, then? If someone uses it "wrong" and "hurts" me, does that mean I can sue the developer, since he is the one in charge of how it is used?
Second rate?
The Hobbit is more of a child's book, granted (LOTR was originally going to be a sequel to The Hobbit but turned out to be longer, deeper, and "darker"), but Tolkien is not second-rate. And yes, it's Tolkien. If you can't spell his name correctly, I question your ability to criticize his work.
Tolkien may not have been the best story teller, though I would hold that he is excellent; what draws me to his works is the extreme depth and development. It is like a contemporary rock song compared to a Beethoven symphony. The rock song may sound really cool, but Beethoven's symphony is far deeper and far more developed that a surface-shiny composition. IMO, Harry Potter is actually more surface-shiny. Tolkien had the mythical history of Middle-Earth more or less figured out by the time LOTR was published to the extent that some of the languages are fully functional (Quenya and Sindarin especially).
There is nothing second rate about Tolkien, except perhaps to a world of small attention spans and desire for quick (and cheap) thrills...
Yay for the car analogy.
I'm still not entirely convinced. Does that mean if I see a demo movie of a game running full graphics, buy it, and it doesn't run that way on MY computer, that I can sue?
OTOH, I am against the fad to warn about absolutely everything. Seriously, you don't really have to warn me that the coffee is hot, I know that. And seriously, you don't need to warn me that if the minimum requirements may not run the flashy new things, I know that too. I realized when I bought Half-Life 2 that my older computer and Radeon 9800 was not going to be able to run it full graphics, and that before I got an 8800 I wouldn't be able to run Crysis full graphics or even full physics.
IMO, it primarily comes down to people not usin their heads enough, unless Microsoft actually claimed something WOULD run on the minimum requirements and it doesn't. If they actually said that Aero will run on the minimum requirements and it physically doesn't, then that's false advertising. If it does but not "well," then that may be really annoying and ethically bleah, but I'm not sure it'd be false advertising.
Why not? Think of it... NASA endorsement and advertising. Sure, maybe a major game studio isn't going to, but if people are willing to work on, say, open source projects where you pretty much won't make any money and never will, why wouldn't a relatively new game company try to work on it and get their name out there in a big way? It would be like an unknown composer (like me) getting to work gratis on a video produced by a major video studio. You don't get money, but you get your name out there in a big way, and if you do WELL, it would do wonders for future job contracts.
I really don't understand the minimum requirements. If you play Crysis with a computer that matched the "minimum requirements" list you'd ... well, the program would RUN.
And Vista RUNS. What exactly does a minimum requirement specify then? As far as I understand, it's what is actually required to run the actual program, not even necessarily run it enough to work with it well.
I don't like Vista even though I generally tend to be on the defend-XP side - but really, the double standard between minimum requirements for Microsoft and minimum requirements for any other product is frustrating.
But then, any anti-Microsoft comment on Slashdot typically gets modded up as insightful or interesting, even if it's redundant.
And, by the way, having everyone switch to Linux won't help that much. Linux is easy for computer nerds/techies to use. Windows is a ton easier for a lot of people, and it's not just what you're used to, it's getting your wireless card, sound card, or video card to work right. Windows does it, Linux doesn't always. :)
Or if they want to release an update pack for those that they know will still be using XP.
Ah, but we were speaking of two different ideas. He said that it DOES smell bad, therefore probably is bad; I said that it doesn't necessarily smell bad. I was attacking his premise, not his conclusion.
Unless it smells bad simply by association. "It's from MS, it must smell bad, therefore it must have something sneaky." Not necessarily good logic.
I would like to see someone attempt to keep 80 Helm's Deeps safe as opposed to 1 Helm's Deep safe... obviously, it failed, but that's because I am going along with your analogy and it was doomed to fail, hehe.
Seriously, having redundancy is a very good thing, but if you are too redundant, it is way easier. If you have 50 shaded windows that people try to look in, it's a lot easier to monitor than if you have 200 windows that you try to monitor (and make sure all the defenses are safe, etc).
I'd also ask, Ubuntu itself is perhaps not the best choice. I actually found Ubuntu harder to use and troubleshoot on my various computers than SuSE.
The lack of software is a huge issue... e.g., ipod, audio production, etc. It seems Linux people are way more interested in making it "cool" than functional or something. Another thing is, for example, presentation software. OpenOffice is pretty good, but when it comes to competing with PowerPoint? I am still having trouble getting a sound file to work with it, having to go through Java is pretty annoying (and a bit slow).
*waits for flame mods* :) - Please note: this is posted on a Dell E1505 running SuSE 10.3 and Firefox...
I think the racial sensitivity that you might be describing can be observed in the summary: "African Americans" and "whites."
Apparently, I, being a white, am less American than one of African descent?
I dunno. If you're going to give people the "dignity" of being called a proper name like "African American," why can't I be called a "Swedish American?"
If I'm called white, I find it entirely fair to call someone black. Frankly, I have no problem with either one, and I have black friends at college (which is primarily a white middle-class school). Of course, so is the demographic of where the school is located, so that makes sense.
*sigh* Racism, these days, seems to mean that you're not giving a *perceived* minority group what they want... no matter what the minority group is. Even "whites."
(interestingly, I think of eggs when I read "whites")
So what you're saying is that if it's not open source, it's not good?
As far as I recall, asbestos is really only dangerous to human lungs because, when "disturbed" in an open air environment, it disperses into rather tiny particles that annoy your lungs rather severely.
I'm not sure entirely what relevance that has to a water environment, except that it seems fish's gills work significantly differently than human lungs.
I would suggest that you read the article again. It was *ahem* initially estimated to be around 1 billion.
I don't think it actually bounces that many times. Even "away" messages in instant messengers won't bounce back and forth to each other.
The automatic shade of "It's not really as good as it seems" is interesting. Anyway, of course it's not an absolute solution, but is there any reason not to use it?
We still use paper, even though we have digital stuff, too. I don't see why we should make paper insanely expensive simply to push towards going entirely digital (or something like that).
If there's a huge deposit of oil in US... well, hopefully there is no endangered snail that has to live on that huge plot of land. :)
Also, regarding your subject line, I am not sure anyone is quite as stupid as you would make them out to be, that we have found an infinite supply of oil that will make us independence forever. Is your point that since it's not a renewable resource, we shouldn't pursue it at all, or use it to get partially energy independent while working on securing energy independence in other ways?
Yes it is, but some still refuse to admit it, it seems.