But when some OSS product has a problem, we should shut up?
So this is what you're saying to me? I should shut up cause I don't know why you'd be using M4 to route your email? Frankly, I don't care how you route your email, I'm in no position to judge, you're not my competitor.
You can't keep the flaws of Linux secret forever.
None of the flaws of open source software is a secret, hence the list of very familiar problems. My point entirely was that Mr. Enderle offers very little objective criticisms and my only argument was that "subjective criticism" should be shunned regardless of the source.
Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but maybe just maybe you do.
You: No, the problem is more that Linux has a much longer and more complex list of discrepancies - but the expert has a similarly long and complex list of solutions.
On Windows, he doesn't have such a list. He is frustrated and confused by even the simplest things, because he does not understand how to resolve his problems.
Me: I think the bottom line is that you either know how to do something or you don't. At the end of the day I hardly consider Microsoft an option. Also, if Microsoft didn't require any kind of "list of solutions" to administer, then what the hell is the point of an MCSA?
You: There will come a time when you don't want to play with the system. You just want it to STFU and get out of your way. Windows does that. Linux doesn't.
Me: Again I think the bottom line is that you either know how to do something or you don't.
M4 is a programing language AFAIK, and operating systems have nothing to do with jumping.
M4? No I really suck at email servers, but on the other hand in Windows or in Linux I think the bottom line is that you either know how to do something or you don't. There is definitely a configuration treadmill you can get on if you aren't careful, but that has nothing to do with configuring the wrong crap. I think getting the box out of my way is the main reason I use Linux at home. And I think most of the problems revolve around Linux not being a 100% desktop solution, so yea I have to configure a few things like a music player for my ipod as well as putting rockbox on it, having a graphics card that I absolutely hate messing with, and maybe one or two other things. At the same time though I have webservers, networked booting, automatic backups, intrusion detection, mysql, postgresql, spamassassin, clamfs, openoffice, gnome office, code editors, etc. At the end of the day I hardly consider Microsoft an option. Also, if Microsoft didn't require any kind of "list of solutions" to administer, then what the hell is the point of an MCSA?
Mainstream Software support (photoshop, itunes, etc.)
User Interface (less so now)
RTFM
Hardware Support
Closed Source Drivers
Third Party Drivers
No/Little options for preinstallation and desktop support
Dependency Hell
I have personally experienced each and everyone of these problems, I have not simply read them.
These are not secrets by any means. The pickle you find yourself in is the fact that all (AFAIK) Gnu-Linux experts are at least familiar with Windows and it's discrepencies. While the bulk of Windows experts have not done much more than install Linux (if even that). This means the arguments are slanted in the OSS community's favor.
My contemporaries from the Windows world would explain the issues with Linux as "It doesn't play games". While hacking their registry, building white boxen, providing tech support, coding, cleaning up virus problems and generally being "advanced" users. (nothing I can't do btw)
The big thing here is that I studied (primarily) Windows in school, use it at work, support it at work, and rather than studying cheat codes and game maps I have three Linux boxes I like to play with.
Umm, more to the point what about the positive effects of having multiple distros? Like a little thing called a free-market, which relies on competition from multiple vendors in order to improve the quality of the industry as a whole. Who for instance, complains of the many choices of cars or cold cereal?
For everyone that says they know this guy is a shill and is arguing with a preconceived end, I didn't know thanks for posting the article and letting everyone vent a bit. This guys arguments are obviously subjective and inflamatory (reminds me of Rush Limbaugh), though his rhetoric is worth listening to in order to recognize it (I think). What you have to realize is that people will read his work and argue in the same line. The arguments are presented in a way that I might agree with about 10% of what is said, this in a debate leads to my appearance of "flip-flopping", the objective when presented with this kind of crap is too take out the foundation of your opponent.
Before reading his article
Rob: We talk about Linux like an operating system when we compare it against Windows,
Me: Sure.
Rob: we talk about it as a company when we compare it against Microsoft,
Me: Sometimes, yes when comparing things like market share I cannot argue this
Rob: and when we describe its attributes it almost seems super-human or god like.
Me: sure (me thinks all organizations and software are superhuman:))
After reading his article
Rob: We talk about Linux like an operating system when we compare it against Windows,
Me: No, we're talking about Unix OS design VS. a Dos/NT hybrid OS, where Unix dates back to the 60s and dos dates to the early eighties.
Rob: we talk about it as a company when we compare it against Microsoft,
Me: Sometimes, yes when comparing things like market share I cannot argue this, but these arguments tend to be made on a case by case basis where such comparisons are applicable.
Rob: and when we describe its attributes it almost seems super-human or god like.
Me: me thinks all organizations and software are superhuman:), for instance Mr. Enderle how far out can you calculate PI? Or can yoy beat Kasperov at chess, Ford Motors as a corporation has continued the work of Henry Ford long after his death as an organization Ford is nearly immortal, how about you? Who will carry on your work after your dead?
See preperation is everything when arguing with a subjective and inflammatory nut-job, you then know what traps are being set. Especially, if someone says "Rob Enderle says..." I can now discredit them with their carefully planned argument and finish with, "http://http//www.macobserver.com/appledeathknell/ index.shtml" among others.
Re:why education technology has failed schools
on
High Tech High 2.0
·
· Score: 1
Reading this made a lot of sense, until I got to here:
"Perhaps schools are not failing to do
what they were designed; perhaps in producing people fit only to work in
highly structured environments doing repetitive work, they are actually
succeeding at doing what they were designed for? Perhaps digging harder
and faster and longer just makes a deeper pit?" at this point my stomach turned inside out and I couldn't read anymore. Of course this is what the schools were designed to do, they were/are very successful at it, and the theory that people are more effective at smaller more repetitive tasks is nothing less than the founding theory of industrialization. This theory is something a lot of businesses have trouble with, they have say 10 employees that bounce all over the place doing twelve jobs that could be handled by 6 employees each doing two jobs.
Then I let my mind wander a bit and ultimately came to the conclusion that efficiency in human activity is no longer that essential (we have computers and machines for much of that). What we need now is proficiency in human thought (typically reserved for higher ed). Then there is foundational knowledge being primarily math and reading, which is essential no matter how you mix things up. How are kids going to explore areas of knowledge without an entry point below knowing enough reading and math? It seems to me that a hybrid method would be a bit more productive.
I think in the long run what we are dealing with is the obsolescence of humanity in light of more efficient machines and more capable computers. Currently, people (performing redundant activities) are needed less because of machines, but many people believe in a technological singularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singul arity) that may require a much higher level of skill before humans are useful.
Essentially, when we are competing with computers and machines there is nothing we can do to "fix" our education system, we can only improve it or make it worse and this is only in relation to specific goals we define.
I work in tech support, I understand your problems completely. In fact I would say that making an operating system decision based on these people, is an excellent idea. Something completely locked down that browses the Internet, allows them to edit documents, sends email, and explains everything with pictures and 16pt font baby talk.
Not 100% sure on this, but I think the original innovator was Google with "Google Desktop Search". I'm kinda surprised that no one mentions the Google app that had everyone screaming "Google OS" for the past couple of years.
First, I'm a big fan of the command line, in fact I have a box in my room that doesn't have X installed at all, but the old saying "A picture is worth a thousand words" really applies here. People simply understand visual cues better than pouring through text. This is why people use diagrams that supplement any kind of written specifications. Visual cues fail on finer grained details, giving us the need for a good CLI. Windows started with a good GUI, Linux started with a good CLI, MacOSX is integrating both in the most elegant ways.
we are able to give these systems our own abilities as a starting point and then watch it somehow create something more intelligent than we are... then we really have something.
This technology is prerequisite to providing an AI system with a starting point. It offers for instance the powers of perception as input for a learning system. A baby for example opens their eyes and simply sees, this is only part of the baby's starting point. Other aspects of your "starting point" include predetermined goals such as eating and also include points of failure like starving. Many avenues of input are required for effective learning at different capacities, Helen Keller for instance learned very early the value of eating, however formal communication was a remarkable accomplishment to say the least.
I agree with you that I would love to see a true A.I. system fully capable of learning, but discounting research that provides an AI system with the ability to see seems rather counter-productive.
If our intelligent systems are always evolution-limited by the progress of our own biological systems then I can't see how A.I. smarter than a human will ever ben achieved.
This will be achieved by more input streams, a more sophisticated "starting point", well thought out points of success and failure, and finally the fact that we can make cooperation mandatory between artificial "minds". This is of course that point at which humans become lost, try to pull the plug and Skynet launches the Nukes in retaliation.
I was thinking the same thing.
It's hilarious that so many people here can't recognize a modular build. If the missile moves at 40mph has a magnet and a flashing light, then they are obviously testing for the results of material impact versus near miss detonation. If some guy is at a base waiting for weeks for someone to fire it's the alarm system. If the missile flies at decent speeds and caries gps/some ping mechanism, then the last thing to be worked out is the tracking system, which can definitely be worked out at speeds that incrementaly approach reality.
I don't have a link but, IIRC I saw something on the military channel (US).
The missile requires gps coordinants and can be fired at a 45 degree angle off target. The accuracy was within 9 yards, I don't remember the distance, but the time from launch to contact was about 2min. I think something like this would be hard to hit, but then again that's US technology.
I know you guys are just being funny, but in sixty years when all wars are fought by robots and counter missile exchanges how devastating will it be when one of those kids crosses in to enemy territory and actually kills people? What will the automated response be? Do you surrender after 100,000 fatalities or do you escalate?
openSUSE YaST2 and control center actually manage to configure pretty much anything that you would need with the desktop without any issues (well, except for the fact that it's damn slow) -- Not when you compare Yast to "Add/Remove Programs" in M$, then you think about it and Yast handles a lot more stuff, like an online repository, complex dependencies, security updates, etc., otherwise I couldn't agree more.
SCO had the memo that said the code was on the CMVC server.
They were handed the CMVC server, and apparantly never
looked or verified the contents of the memo before claiming
it as evidence of deleted code.
SCO was trying to pass yet another one over on the Judge, this
is painfully idiotic.
Slashdot Mirror
You're a child
Hey, look! You don't know what you're talking about. M4 is a programing language (well macro processor) and coincidentally I'm not retarded.
Couldn't agree more, system administration is about offering something that works and is best for your company.
So this is what you're saying to me? I should shut up cause I don't know why you'd be using M4 to route your email? Frankly, I don't care how you route your email, I'm in no position to judge, you're not my competitor.
You can't keep the flaws of Linux secret forever.None of the flaws of open source software is a secret, hence the list of very familiar problems. My point entirely was that Mr. Enderle offers very little objective criticisms and my only argument was that "subjective criticism" should be shunned regardless of the source.
Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but maybe just maybe you do.
You: No, the problem is more that Linux has a much longer and more complex list of discrepancies - but the expert has a similarly long and complex list of solutions. On Windows, he doesn't have such a list. He is frustrated and confused by even the simplest things, because he does not understand how to resolve his problems. Me: I think the bottom line is that you either know how to do something or you don't. At the end of the day I hardly consider Microsoft an option. Also, if Microsoft didn't require any kind of "list of solutions" to administer, then what the hell is the point of an MCSA? You: There will come a time when you don't want to play with the system. You just want it to STFU and get out of your way. Windows does that. Linux doesn't. Me: Again I think the bottom line is that you either know how to do something or you don't.M4 is a programing language AFAIK, and operating systems have nothing to do with jumping.
M4? No I really suck at email servers, but on the other hand in Windows or in Linux I think the bottom line is that you either know how to do something or you don't. There is definitely a configuration treadmill you can get on if you aren't careful, but that has nothing to do with configuring the wrong crap. I think getting the box out of my way is the main reason I use Linux at home. And I think most of the problems revolve around Linux not being a 100% desktop solution, so yea I have to configure a few things like a music player for my ipod as well as putting rockbox on it, having a graphics card that I absolutely hate messing with, and maybe one or two other things. At the same time though I have webservers, networked booting, automatic backups, intrusion detection, mysql, postgresql, spamassassin, clamfs, openoffice, gnome office, code editors, etc. At the end of the day I hardly consider Microsoft an option. Also, if Microsoft didn't require any kind of "list of solutions" to administer, then what the hell is the point of an MCSA?
Now with cell phones though we could at least get decent power cabling.
Far more common is:
Someone decides Windows is awesome/easy/dependable/safe, then looks for reasons to justify that viewpoint.
- Patents and IP (gif, mp3, m4a, dvds, drm, etc.)
- Mainstream Software support (photoshop, itunes, etc.)
- User Interface (less so now)
- RTFM
- Hardware Support
- Closed Source Drivers
- Third Party Drivers
- No/Little options for preinstallation and desktop support
- Dependency Hell
I have personally experienced each and everyone of these problems, I have not simply read them.These are not secrets by any means. The pickle you find yourself in is the fact that all (AFAIK) Gnu-Linux experts are at least familiar with Windows and it's discrepencies. While the bulk of Windows experts have not done much more than install Linux (if even that). This means the arguments are slanted in the OSS community's favor.
My contemporaries from the Windows world would explain the issues with Linux as "It doesn't play games". While hacking their registry, building white boxen, providing tech support, coding, cleaning up virus problems and generally being "advanced" users. (nothing I can't do btw)
The big thing here is that I studied (primarily) Windows in school, use it at work, support it at work, and rather than studying cheat codes and game maps I have three Linux boxes I like to play with.
Umm, more to the point what about the positive effects of having multiple distros? Like a little thing called a free-market, which relies on competition from multiple vendors in order to improve the quality of the industry as a whole. Who for instance, complains of the many choices of cars or cold cereal?
For everyone that says they know this guy is a shill and is arguing with a preconceived end, I didn't know thanks for posting the article and letting everyone vent a bit. This guys arguments are obviously subjective and inflamatory (reminds me of Rush Limbaugh), though his rhetoric is worth listening to in order to recognize it (I think). What you have to realize is that people will read his work and argue in the same line. The arguments are presented in a way that I might agree with about 10% of what is said, this in a debate leads to my appearance of "flip-flopping", the objective when presented with this kind of crap is too take out the foundation of your opponent.
Before reading his articleRob: We talk about Linux like an operating system when we compare it against Windows,
Me: Sure.
Rob: we talk about it as a company when we compare it against Microsoft,
Me: Sometimes, yes when comparing things like market share I cannot argue this
Rob: and when we describe its attributes it almost seems super-human or god like.
Me: sure (me thinks all organizations and software are superhuman :))
After reading his articleRob: We talk about Linux like an operating system when we compare it against Windows,
Me: No, we're talking about Unix OS design VS. a Dos/NT hybrid OS, where Unix dates back to the 60s and dos dates to the early eighties.
Rob: we talk about it as a company when we compare it against Microsoft,
Me: Sometimes, yes when comparing things like market share I cannot argue this, but these arguments tend to be made on a case by case basis where such comparisons are applicable.
Rob: and when we describe its attributes it almost seems super-human or god like.
Me: me thinks all organizations and software are superhuman :), for instance Mr. Enderle how far out can you calculate PI? Or can yoy beat Kasperov at chess, Ford Motors as a corporation has continued the work of Henry Ford long after his death as an organization Ford is nearly immortal, how about you? Who will carry on your work after your dead?
See preperation is everything when arguing with a subjective and inflammatory nut-job, you then know what traps are being set. Especially, if someone says "Rob Enderle says..." I can now discredit them with their carefully planned argument and finish with, "http://http//www.macobserver.com/appledeathknell/ index.shtml" among others.
Reading this made a lot of sense, until I got to here:
"Perhaps schools are not failing to do what they were designed; perhaps in producing people fit only to work in highly structured environments doing repetitive work, they are actually succeeding at doing what they were designed for? Perhaps digging harder and faster and longer just makes a deeper pit?" at this point my stomach turned inside out and I couldn't read anymore. Of course this is what the schools were designed to do, they were/are very successful at it, and the theory that people are more effective at smaller more repetitive tasks is nothing less than the founding theory of industrialization. This theory is something a lot of businesses have trouble with, they have say 10 employees that bounce all over the place doing twelve jobs that could be handled by 6 employees each doing two jobs.Then I let my mind wander a bit and ultimately came to the conclusion that efficiency in human activity is no longer that essential (we have computers and machines for much of that). What we need now is proficiency in human thought (typically reserved for higher ed). Then there is foundational knowledge being primarily math and reading, which is essential no matter how you mix things up. How are kids going to explore areas of knowledge without an entry point below knowing enough reading and math? It seems to me that a hybrid method would be a bit more productive.
I think in the long run what we are dealing with is the obsolescence of humanity in light of more efficient machines and more capable computers. Currently, people (performing redundant activities) are needed less because of machines, but many people believe in a technological singularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singul arity) that may require a much higher level of skill before humans are useful.
Essentially, when we are competing with computers and machines there is nothing we can do to "fix" our education system, we can only improve it or make it worse and this is only in relation to specific goals we define.
cyphercellI work in tech support, I understand your problems completely. In fact I would say that making an operating system decision based on these people, is an excellent idea. Something completely locked down that browses the Internet, allows them to edit documents, sends email, and explains everything with pictures and 16pt font baby talk.
Not 100% sure on this, but I think the original innovator was Google with "Google Desktop Search". I'm kinda surprised that no one mentions the Google app that had everyone screaming "Google OS" for the past couple of years.
First, I'm a big fan of the command line, in fact I have a box in my room that doesn't have X installed at all, but the old saying "A picture is worth a thousand words" really applies here. People simply understand visual cues better than pouring through text. This is why people use diagrams that supplement any kind of written specifications. Visual cues fail on finer grained details, giving us the need for a good CLI. Windows started with a good GUI, Linux started with a good CLI, MacOSX is integrating both in the most elegant ways.
This technology is prerequisite to providing an AI system with a starting point. It offers for instance the powers of perception as input for a learning system. A baby for example opens their eyes and simply sees, this is only part of the baby's starting point. Other aspects of your "starting point" include predetermined goals such as eating and also include points of failure like starving. Many avenues of input are required for effective learning at different capacities, Helen Keller for instance learned very early the value of eating, however formal communication was a remarkable accomplishment to say the least.
I agree with you that I would love to see a true A.I. system fully capable of learning, but discounting research that provides an AI system with the ability to see seems rather counter-productive.
If our intelligent systems are always evolution-limited by the progress of our own biological systems then I can't see how A.I. smarter than a human will ever ben achieved.This will be achieved by more input streams, a more sophisticated "starting point", well thought out points of success and failure, and finally the fact that we can make cooperation mandatory between artificial "minds". This is of course that point at which humans become lost, try to pull the plug and Skynet launches the Nukes in retaliation.
"Asked if the satellite's remains would threaten other spacecraft, she asserted that China's policy was to keep space free of weapons."
Hmm, and I thought all that talk about being more secure was just market speak.
That's it. I'm locking up my kid's light brite and boarding the windows. This country's gone mad.
I was thinking the same thing. It's hilarious that so many people here can't recognize a modular build. If the missile moves at 40mph has a magnet and a flashing light, then they are obviously testing for the results of material impact versus near miss detonation. If some guy is at a base waiting for weeks for someone to fire it's the alarm system. If the missile flies at decent speeds and caries gps/some ping mechanism, then the last thing to be worked out is the tracking system, which can definitely be worked out at speeds that incrementaly approach reality.
I don't have a link but, IIRC I saw something on the military channel (US). The missile requires gps coordinants and can be fired at a 45 degree angle off target. The accuracy was within 9 yards, I don't remember the distance, but the time from launch to contact was about 2min. I think something like this would be hard to hit, but then again that's US technology.
I know you guys are just being funny, but in sixty years when all wars are fought by robots and counter missile exchanges how devastating will it be when one of those kids crosses in to enemy territory and actually kills people? What will the automated response be? Do you surrender after 100,000 fatalities or do you escalate?
LOL Hey, GP. It's where Linus Torvalds works.
This will end when SCO freezes over.
SCO had the memo that said the code was on the CMVC server. They were handed the CMVC server, and apparantly never looked or verified the contents of the memo before claiming it as evidence of deleted code. SCO was trying to pass yet another one over on the Judge, this is painfully idiotic.