Part of me feels like I shouldn't even say this, because I don't want to take anything away from the achievement of the people who released this alpha....
But I remember when BeOS first gained traction. Copies of the installation CD were even being given away free, bundled with magazines - and the "buzz" was all over my workplace in the I.T. and software development portions of the company. Despite all of that, the universal conclusion of those who tried to use it for a while was the same. It was a "really cool OS in concept, but wasn't practical to use for much of anything". Much of the free software released for it was extremely buggy or incomplete "alpha" level code that never got updated after the first couple revisions. And in the realm of commercial software, it was barely a blip on the radar. Nobody saw the point in putting forth real effort to write large apps for BeOS, when the apps already ran just fine on one or more other OS's that were in widespread use already.
I think the unfortunate truth with developing an new operating system is, you can build the technically "best and most innovative" one in the world, but at the end of the day, it's only the applications that really matter. If you have too many competing OS's out there in widespread use at one time, it becomes more of a "negative" than a "positive" - because there are too many incompatibility problems. This is what caused MS-DOS and eventually Windows to achieve dominance in the first place. People really valued the ability to buy a piece of software and know it would run fine on whichever computer they chose to buy next, instead of having to say "Oh, I had the Commodore version... so I have to buy it again if I want it for this Atari...."
Apple was able to get OS X into the mainstream because they understood this. Their iLife suite is a big part of what makes a Mac with OS X attractive to a lot of potential buyers. Their Final Cut movie editing software (and now, Logic software for audio, since they bought that product out) make it attractive to still other audiences.
If Haiku can't offer similar "killer apps", I predict it will never become more than a curiosity of OS releases.
I actually have known a couple guys who came pretty close. One of them was actually a former good friend of mine, until circumstances caused us to go our separate ways. (Long story, but among other issues, he got married to an older woman who was unbearable to be around for any length of time. I'm pretty sure she was on a "mission" to drive away all of his former techie friends....)
In any case though, his "forte" was with computer security and hacking issues in general. He had a whole library of really interesting and in-depth books on the topic, and he was like a walking version of the library himself. He'd often get into arguments with people who were spouting off their opinions (often flawed or outright incorrect), and more often than not, people started resenting him because he was right (and made them look bad or feel stupid).
The only people who usually managed to stay friends with him were either those who didn't really HAVE opinions on anything technical (and therefore, didn't have reason to get into any confrontation with him on those topics to begin with), or people like myself, who valued his intelligence and knowledge, and could overlook his lack of tact in dealing with some people.
Perhaps unfortunately, I think the "work world" actually values people's schmoozing abilities over competence in most areas. I lost touch with him for a long time, but last time I checked up on his whereabouts, I was shocked to discover he'd been working low-paying retail jobs selling consumer electronics for years. By all rights, this guy would be WELL qualified to do far more... but his personality probably made H.R. departments reject him for not being enough of a "team player".
I'm 38, so from the generation before "texting" came along. Still, I'm a big proponent of communications technologies of ALL types. (In fact, that's really why I'm still involved in the computer field today. I got hooked on computers in the 80's, with a Timex Sinclair 1000 PC that only had 2K of RAM and no modem available for it. It was interesting writing my own programs in BASIC and playing games on it, etc. etc. But eventually, I grew bored with it. When I upgraded to a TRS-80 with a 300 baud modem, that's when things really got interesting. All of a sudden, I saw the real future of computing... enabling new forms of communication!
That said, I think it's always a matter of using the right tool for the right job. My big issue with SMS messaging is that unlike most communications technologies - it doesn't really bring much new to the table. It wouldn't really have ANY value over instant messaging technologies EXCEPT for the fact the cellular carriers designed it to ensure proper delivery. (If someone sends you a text and your phone is turned off, or not getting good reception at that moment, no problem. They hold it and deliver it as soon as they see the receiving phone is ready to accept it.) Meanwhile, they make a killing charging people for texting plans and even *per message* fees if you don't have one, or go over some arbitrary limit. But the amount of data actually transferred is nothing compared to what you can already move for no extra charge, with any type of "data plan" on the phone.
Meanwhile, I have to deal with junk text messages all the time, and texts sent to the wrong number... so a whole new hassle that never existed before. There's no real ability to block incoming SMS messages either. (I've tried and tried to get Sprint/Nextel to disable incoming texts on a number of our cellphones at work, but they can never seem to successfully do it. We still get random B.S. about calling 900 sex lines, or fake messages from banks about our bank cards being lost and to call some number to straighten it out.)
Texting can be useful, and I occasionally use it. But when I see younger people claiming it's hugely important for them to organize social outings in "today's hectic world", I have to ask why it wasn't "necessary" for us, just 5-10 years earlier? I think the fact is, we learned to be a little more organized. If you didn't call your buddies a day or two ahead to plan a get-together, then good luck getting many people to show up! The fact that SMSing makes it *possible* to plan with almost no advance notice doesn't make it a "good thing". I don't see a net positive about using these tools to further increase the frantic pace of society.
We always talk about that "sad truth" that people won't pay more for quality... but it tends to come up in the context of one costly item or another that didn't make it. It ignores all the successes. I think the closest thing to the truth is, people will always be tempted by the promise of an "outstandingly good value". We've got numerous businesses today that primarily hawk junky, but low-cost goods, while trying to put a false front of "quality" on the front of the whole operation. People get swindled into buying the lower-cost stuff, with false promises that it's really "just as good as the more expensive version".
People *will* pay more for quality, but they don't want to accidentally pay TOO MUCH for that quality either.
Since you want to drag up the ever-popular Apple comparison, I'll bite with a story of my own.
A while back, I wound up gutting apart my Core 2 Duo P4 full-tower PC clone because one of my best friends needed some repair parts that happened to be just what I had in my system. I figured I'd sell him what he needed, eventually sell some of the rest of it, and just simplify things by getting myself a new "all in one" type PC to put on that desk. I've already slowly switched most of my computer gear to Macs, ever since I worked for a guy who had an all Mac office, and got hooked on OS X... but decided to go with an HP TouchSmart all-in-one, in this case. After all, it had an actual touch-screen on it, which no iMac has, a kind of cool ambient backlight on it, and so forth. It was even around $200 cheaper than a comparable iMac. So hey, a "deal is a deal" right? No point falling into that trap you mention of paying for "style".
Well, it didn't work out like that at all.... As soon as I went to take the back cover off the TouchSmart to upgrade its 320GB drive to a 1TB SATA I already had lying around, I discovered the shoddy workmanship to the machine. Plastic clips broke off the first time I snapped the shell apart after removing the screws, and the case developed a small crack in one corner when I snapped it all back together. (This thing is obviously not designed to come apart more than once or twice without needing a whole new outer casing!) The computer makes annoying rattling sounds from its cooling fan too, and when I tried to upgrade it to Windows 7 from Vista, found out HP's touch-screen applications software doesn't even work right in 7. The bluetooth mouse feels cheap and eats batteries quickly, too - and to top if all of, the integrated Intel video is SLOW. I would have had a vastly superior machine if I just went with the Apple iMac (better video by a mile, aluminum case instead of cheap plastic, etc. etc.), and I could have set it up to run Windows 7 just fine if I so desired.
So claiming Apple is all about style but not quality, because quality didn't work out for them in sales? Nah... not buying that one. Apple figured out it's best when you do BOTH together.
Maybe it really has to do with MENTAL activity though? You could tell obese people to get off the couch and go for a walk all you like, but if the core problem is that they're mentally lazy, and prefer passive forms of entertainment (like television) to active problem-solving and deep thought, you probably haven't fixed anything for them.
In fact, I think it might be interesting to see if this claimed loss of brain function in obese people applies equally to obese people with a career in the computer field, working as a software developer or something along those lines?
Let me first say I totally agree with your point. But really, I think this is about something different than what most of us logically think it should be about.
I suspect the networks and advertisers are interested, primarily, in who is tuning in to the provided programming in "real time". Even if they find out that a certain TV series is wildly popular with people who recorded it to watch later? They may still be most fixated on the numbers who thought it was worth interrupting their day or night to watch it, as soon as it hit the airwaves.
I'm not in this industry, but I can see how an advertiser would place a lot of value on knowing their commercial is being viewed in a prompt manner by viewers. (EG. If you want to run an ad talking about a special sale "this weekend only!" at your local sandwich shop or car dealership, the ad is rendered useless to anyone who "gets around to watching it" on their DVR the following week.)
I think we obviously HAVE moved on. Do you see a lot of boycotts over IBM products out there, over what happened during WWII? I don't think so.
The point is, Watson was in charge of IBM at that time, and it's clear that despite being in charge of the whole company, his allegiances were to Nazi Germany. (He even accepted the highest civilian honor Hitler could award a person with.)
Nobody's talking about demanding reparations here. I brought the topic up simply to illustrate that large corporations really have no "allegiance" to a country, just because they happen to have a corporate HQ placed there. Their agendas and claimed "requirements" for staying in a place are subject to change at any time, possibly based on nothing more than a change of management.
I recommend reading a book called "IBM and the Holocaust" (http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com).
This is a company that happily accepted huge sums of money from the Germans during WWII to computerize the process of hunting down and exterminating Jews, and even "hardened" several of their facilities so they'd survive Allied bombings. All the while, they claimed to be an American business.
It's arguable that in a sense, they "left" the United States back then, even if they still retained a big physical presence here. Despite the law preventing IBM from being able to move their profits out of German banks during the war, they STILL happily worked on their projects for them, knowing full-well they couldn't even touch the money for years.
Apple's technologies are "definitely overpriced when they don't need to because Jobs himself think he is better than so many"??
1. Companies price their products at whatever price the market will bear. If they don't, they go OUT of business due to lack of sales. Apple is having no problem moving their products at their asking prices. (In fact, they're still building more Apple retail stores at a time when most companies are closing them!)
2. The average person you run into who thinks that Steve Jobs is a "better" person than Bill Gates usually believes that because they've heard so much negativity about Microsoft's products and claimed "anti-competitive" behavior. In most situations, people like to root for the under-dog, all other things being essentially equal, and that's really what you've got here. Microsoft has the lion's share of the operating system market, and Apple stands out as the only company making a serious effort at offering a commercial alternative to that operating system. Outside of "tech geek" circles, I doubt most people know much of anything about the personal lives or behavior of EITHER man.
3. I haven't heard it mentioned very often, but sometimes I wonder if Steve Jobs really has sort of a disdain for "geeks" and techie types who obsess over things like computers and gadgetry? I've read that in his personal life, he likes keeping things pretty basic (having gone for long periods of time owning places that don't even have any real furniture in some of the rooms). We certainly know his clothing choices are pretty basic (doesn't get much more basic than blue-jeans and a black t-shirt). He's also traditionally been obsessed with very "clean" design that sticks to basic shapes, and always seemed to be in pursuit of a very quiet, unobtrusive computer (even when removal of the fans resulted in system temperatures running near the thermal limits of the hardware). He seems to be proud of the company's achievements on the whole, yet dislikes the "hard core" fans enough to financially gouge early-adopters who "gotta have the shiny new product first!" (Polar opposite strategy of what one might expect, where early-adopters get some kind of price BREAK or extra incentive to buy a first revision product....) It reminds me, in some ways, of George Lucas and his treatment of science-fiction fans who blog and rave about the Star Wars franchise. He's often made it clear he can't relate to those types - despite putting out products that would seem to target them directly.
In theory, you might be right, but Cider hasn't really proven to live up to ANY of those promises you mention.
1. Enabling same-day releases? E.A. failed miserably at that with practically all the Cider-enabled titles they announced last year. Madden Football '08 for OS X? Nope... not same day as the Windows version release. Red Alert 3? Nope, had delays.... Ubisoft hasn't fared much better. Shaun White's Snowboarding was out for Windows first.
2. 80% to 90% of Windows performance? Again, maybe ideally - but I don't think Mac gamers are seeing anywhere near that on the titles they're putting out. Things like keyboard response and screen updates are far worse than with the Windows counterparts. I played NFS Carbon for OS X, for example, and on a 2.8Ghz octo-core Mac Pro with 8GB of RAM and an nVidia 8800GT video card, it was laggy/jerky and just all around not that fun to play. I tried it later on a PS3 and it was a night and day playability difference.... I'm pretty sure the Windows version isn't THAT much worse than the PS3 version.
3. Yeah, developers ALWAYS say the Mac doesn't have enough market-share, but that seems like a double-edged sword to me. Windows ALSO has so many more titles to choose from, you'd think you'd have far fewer buyers for any one game release, because the money gets spread out over so many more options. If you release a really good OS X native Mac title, practically EVERYONE interested in gaming on a Mac may well buy your game.
It only seems strange that the PS2 is still selling so well, until you realize that the PS3 really isn't "standard def. TV friendly".... I know quite a few people who play games on their PS2, and bought replacements when their old unit broke/wore out, but have no real interest in a PS3, simply because they're still using a large-ish tube type standard-def TV as their main television set. (If you have cable or satellite, you really have no need to replace it, after all.)
My experience with using a PS3 in standard def resolution was eye-strain inducing, trying to read many of the text fonts the games would display.
There's a pretty big ratio of PS3 owners who coupled the purchase with a new plasma or LCD TV.... partially because they wanted a Blu-Ray player for that fancy new set, but realistically, it's practically a requirement to enjoy many of the game titles too.
"...only PC gamers use the word 'port' with such a fervent degree of repulsion"??
How about Mac OS X users!!?
Every time they give us a "port" these days, it's just someone repackaging the PC game code around the Cider engine, tweaking some of Cider's parameters until it appears to "basically run ok" and then they turn around and charge full retail price for it, AFTER it's been out at least 3 months for the PC already!
Never-mind the PC version might ALREADY have just been ported from a console.....
Your car analogy works just fine, up to the point where I'm arguing that I'm owed a refund on parts of the computer HARDWARE I don't like or want to keep/use. (A refund because I dislike and don't use the touchpad? Same as complaining about back seats in a new car purchase, really.)
But THIS dispute pertains to the whole idea that a system manufacturer can pre-load another company's operating system SOFTWARE onto the computer (complete with legal agreements the end user has to click to accept as binding), and then tell you it was all really "one piece of equipment".
I don't think there's a fair comparison in the world of cars? But I guess if you wanted to force a car analogy to fit here, you'd be talking about something like buying a new Chevy, and the dealer including the "Complete Chevrolet Maintenance and Repair Guide" in the glovebox, and billing you an extra $125 or so for it on your invoice, as one of the line-item "features" on the vehicle. Would you think it was still reasonable to tell everyone to "Skip buying this Chevrolet, because it comes with this unnecessary repair guide!"? Or would you haggle with your salesperson to see if he/she could sell you the car without that book included?
The courts seem to be saying that simply because DVD movies are encrypted, the laws banning unauthorized decryption of said content trump one's "fair use" rights to copy the source material.
(That's the only logical conclusion I can draw from their making the distinction to Real Networks that their unwillingness to "return or destroy" the CSS agreement constituted their loss of rights to market this product.)
Ultimately, such an agreement is either legally binding, or it isn't -- and if "fair use" rights trumped it, then it shouldn't be legally binding anymore.
If you go off and develop your own tool to make DVD backups, you *have* to break the encryption to successfully do it - so once again, you're doing something illegal. The fact you didn't obtain it from someone else seems to be irrelevant. This is why we need to repeal the DMCA.....
But where you and I apparently differ has to do with our views of the viability of a "free marketplace".
I'd say where things REALLY went wrong in the US was where government started bowing to big business interests. When government officials became corrupt enough to allow companies to buy votes, and eventually, to place their own people in office, it all started coming apart.
If you had a far *smaller*, more limited government (as Libertarians are constantly advocating), much of this would be rendered a non-issue. (EG. A large and powerful food and drug administration is a perfect target for special interests like Monsanto to try to "take over", so they can pass legislation stamping out small, organic farms, and force all farmers on-board with buying their genetically modified seeds and pesticides. If government gets out of that arena completely, there's no more advantage for Monsanto to leverage there.)
You can't ever stop corruption. People will always be out there trying to "game" things for personal advantage. But I'd rather have a relatively free and open marketplace out there, where the scammers and manipulators can be pressured and eventually stamped out by their own competition, vs. the potential of the corruption taking hold at the "top of the chain", in a powerful government that's much harder to unseat or "fix".
It's all a matter of perspective... but I'd maintain that the reason the US has become relatively "unlivable" for many is because we've got this government (and general public) that can't really seem to make their minds up about just WHAT the rules of operation are supposed to be here!
On one hand, you've got people (like the current administration) keenly following the European model of things, and trying to sell all of us on socialism. On the other hand, you've got quite a few of us who believe our nation ran just fine the way it was originally designed by the "Founding Fathers", and got progressively worse as people tried to dilute it with elements of other types of government.
I take offense to your blanket statement of Libertarians as "inbred morons", because I consider myself a Libertarian - yet far from a "moron". Are there people latching onto that political platform who aren't exactly "firing on all cylinders"? Absolutely. There will always be irresponsible and relatively stupid individuals who think a party advocating "individual rights/freedoms" is the party for them - only because they want to do now illegal stuff and "get away with it" (smoking marijuana, etc. etc.). That doesn't make the entire Libertarian party worthless, though. The L.P. makes one big assumption; that the majority of people grasp that with individual freedoms comes individual responsibility. If you're the type who thinks humans are "inherently bad/evil/stupid" - you'll never be comfortable with libertarian ideals. (And most likely, a political system where people operate for the "collective good" of some "wiser, more sensible" head of government is up your alley.)
Most people I know buying netbooks are doing so because they already own 1 or more computers (often already own a notebook, even), and they just like the idea of having something cheap that could really be brought around anywhere they go without many concerns.
(EG. I have a custom configured Macbook Pro I bought new, last year. Great machine, and I maxxed out the RAM in it, upgraded the hard drive to a 500GB, and got a great carrying bag for it and its accessories. I take it to work regularly and on vacation trips, etc. But with a value of close to $3000 for all of that, possible theft or loss is a big worry. I'm definitely not going to lug it all over the place without a care in the world.... So I got a $200 or so closeout model of eeePC, and that one is pretty disposable by comparison. It's less functional and the screen gives me eyestrain after a while - but it works in a pinch, in places I'd just do without a portable otherwise.)
I suspect a 12" screen netbook is approaching the size where it's a little less convenient to take everywhere. (I can throw my eeePC in my car's glovebox.. but don't think a 12" display netbook would fit.) It also has to carry a bit higher price-tag than a 9" or 10" screen model would carry.
I made another comment on here already, along these lines.... but I'll re-iterate anyway.
I've definitely had interviews where, by the end, I really had no useful questions that came to mind -- simply because after an hour of so of "back and forth" about the company and the job requirements, plus a tour that let me see things ranging from the dress code to the environment employees were working in, there wasn't much left to ask.
To me, saying "I think you've answered all of my questions right now, but I'll definitely follow up with you if I think of anything else." is a perfectly honest and legitimate answer. Certainly looks better than trying to make up some silly question you really wouldn't have asked otherwise, but are trying to throw out there just so the employer can check-off his list that "Yep, they asked me something."
Rather than "red flagging" a person for not having a question at the end of the interview, I think you'd be wise to ask them questions DURING said interview to determine their problem-solving capabilities. (EG. Ask them to tell you about 1 or 2 situations in previous jobs where they encountered a puzzling problem, and how they went about solving it.)
Frankly, I always dreaded the end of the interview, when I get asked that "So, do you have any questions for ME?" part.
People turn the whole process into such a "game", with the employer trying to glean some hidden meaning from every sentence the prospective hire speaks, and the interviewee trying to think of things to ask that will "impress" the employer, instead of just asking anything they'd *really* like to know.
I've definitely had interviews where I really had NO questions worth asking, by the end of a lengthy interview (and tour of the facility). Maybe the interviewer wrote me off because I didn't ask some "magic questions" he was hoping to hear from me... but I honestly felt like everything I cared to know was already answered satisfactorily. If I thought of anything else, I'd rather email or call them later to find out about it.
Other times, I could tell I was interviewing with a highly technical person in the company, so I probably *did* want to know some details of how their environment was configured. That's not because of some "religious zealotry"... but simply because as the grandparent poster said, it's informative to know if you're working for a company that embraces "open standards" and supports multiple platforms, or one that uses "closed" technologies, so by extension, is more "hostile" to alternate options. (EG. The small business I work for today is primarily a "Windows" shop, but my personal laptop is a Mac. Initially, the owners had some concern about introducing it to the network environment, and I wound up having to get their outside consultant to back me up, insisting it was "harmless", before they become comfortable with it. If I was working for a larger firm, or one that had web-based apps requiring Direct-X extensions or coded specifically for IE 6 or 7 or something, though, this sort of thing would have been useful to know in advance.)
I dunno.... It might be a bogus story, but so is the concept that Slashdot is here to cover any and all LINUX items of note. Last I checked, this was supposed to be a tech news site. ("News for Nerds") It never said anywhere that it's about Linux news or promotion, directly. That's just a bias people decided the site had, long ago, when there seemed to be an abnormally large number of Linux or BSD related stories posted - and the comments left encouraged it.
In my experiences, you're absolutely right that many guys feel a need to "be looked up to" - but that's sort of irrelevant, when it comes to figuring out some sort of formula for "relationship success". (EG. I think it's perfectly possible to have a relationship where both partners are essentially "equals", yet both look up to each other -- perhaps for very different reasons.)
Whether you're a guy who has a strong need to feel like your partner "admires some aspect of your personality" or not, you simply need to be paired up with a woman who has similar goals to yours, so you can work as a "team" getting through the "business of life". It's a difference in basic priorities that seems to destroy most marriages. (If the guy, for example, is putting in a lot of hours at work, with a "goal" of ensuring financial security for the family -- problems will develop if the woman doesn't value that goal. Maybe she'd prefer the guy be home more often to "share in household chores" or to "spend more time with the kids"? Or by the same token, if the woman is the primary wage-earner, the guy has to share in the idea that her working those hours adds more "value" to the relationship than having things a different way. Sometimes, I think it's not REALLY even as simple an issue as the man being upset because she "out earns" him and that's non-traditional.... It may be a "power and control" issue, where the primary wage-earner gets to "call the shots" about whether or not a new car is purchased, how much will be spent on going out to dinner or where/how a summer vacation is going to work, etc. etc. "He (she) who has the gold makes the rules." in other words.
This stuff is part of a much bigger issue... govt. transitioning towards fascism. We're rapidly turning into a police state, under the guise of "keeping us safe from terrorist threats".
The Pirate Party only focuses on one specific issue that interests them, so MANY people who fully agree with their stance still wouldn't take them seriously as a viable political party. (I expect a political candidate I elect to handle a myriad of issues thrown at them. As such, they better have a fairly comprehensive list explaining their positions on the topics. The Pirate Party, last I checked, really didn't even try to weigh in on topics like foreign relations and wars, economic strategies, taxes for small businesses, gun ownership rights, healthcare, public schools (and vouchers for students opting to attend a private school?), or even term-limits for politicians.)
I'd suggest that if you want reform with these issues, you look for candidates advocating smaller government and less govt. control. A "lean" govt. that sticks to the basic, vs. a bloated one with a department for everything imaginable is FAR less likely to waste their time and money prosecuting nonsense like a guy making hardware mods to game systems for a living.
In the last decade or so, Radio Shack seems to have been really pushing to become more of a "boutique electronics retailer", ditching their image as a "parts store" for hobbyists. I guess on one hand, I understand the desire - because there's not a lot of profit in individual sales when your customers want a package of resistors, a spool of wire, or some $10 pliers or cutter tool.
But I don't think their obvious alternative has worked out very well for them either. They're stuck trying to compete with much larger stores like Best Buy, and getting killed merely because Radio Shack doesn't have enough floor space in a store to carry the variety people expect when shopping for a new flat panel TV set or stereo, or computer.
Reminding people that their stores are small "EG. "The Shack" is emphasizing what may be their biggest negative in the market-space they're working in!
Yeah - but not only does MS "not like it"... They actively spend money on lawyers to harass and threaten anyone they catch attempting to do it (despite "right of first sale" law seeming to be on the side of the consumer on this one).
I tried selling unopened OEM copies of Windows 2000 Professional, years back, with original COA certificates still shrink-wrapped with the media - and the Microsoft legal team got my eBay auctions canceled promptly, and sent me legal threats in email.
Another attempt on Craigslist to do the same with XP got my listings flagged in short order, too.
If you have a personal friend you can make the deal with in person, great... but just saying, it's not always easy to advertise such an offer to others.
Also, aren't some of the CD keys linked to copies of XP designed only for a particular brand of computer? I thought with OEM editions, they created custom XP installation discs for major players like Dell, Toshiba and HP - so a given COA sticker on the side of one of those boxes would only work with a restore/recovery disc made for that manufacturer's systems (uses their BIOS to verify what you're trying to load it on)?
Slashdot Mirror
Part of me feels like I shouldn't even say this, because I don't want to take anything away from the achievement of the people who released this alpha....
But I remember when BeOS first gained traction. Copies of the installation CD were even being given away free, bundled with magazines - and the "buzz" was all over my workplace in the I.T. and software development portions of the company. Despite all of that, the universal conclusion of those who tried to use it for a while was the same. It was a "really cool OS in concept, but wasn't practical to use for much of anything". Much of the free software released for it was extremely buggy or incomplete "alpha" level code that never got updated after the first couple revisions. And in the realm of commercial software, it was barely a blip on the radar. Nobody saw the point in putting forth real effort to write large apps for BeOS, when the apps already ran just fine on one or more other OS's that were in widespread use already.
I think the unfortunate truth with developing an new operating system is, you can build the technically "best and most innovative" one in the world, but at the end of the day, it's only the applications that really matter. If you have too many competing OS's out there in widespread use at one time, it becomes more of a "negative" than a "positive" - because there are too many incompatibility problems. This is what caused MS-DOS and eventually Windows to achieve dominance in the first place. People really valued the ability to buy a piece of software and know it would run fine on whichever computer they chose to buy next, instead of having to say "Oh, I had the Commodore version ... so I have to buy it again if I want it for this Atari...."
Apple was able to get OS X into the mainstream because they understood this. Their iLife suite is a big part of what makes a Mac with OS X attractive to a lot of potential buyers. Their Final Cut movie editing software (and now, Logic software for audio, since they bought that product out) make it attractive to still other audiences.
If Haiku can't offer similar "killer apps", I predict it will never become more than a curiosity of OS releases.
It turned out that this new development eventually put Tyler Durden's soap-making enterprise out of business.....
I actually have known a couple guys who came pretty close. One of them was actually a former good friend of mine, until circumstances caused us to go our separate ways. (Long story, but among other issues, he got married to an older woman who was unbearable to be around for any length of time. I'm pretty sure she was on a "mission" to drive away all of his former techie friends....)
In any case though, his "forte" was with computer security and hacking issues in general. He had a whole library of really interesting and in-depth books on the topic, and he was like a walking version of the library himself. He'd often get into arguments with people who were spouting off their opinions (often flawed or outright incorrect), and more often than not, people started resenting him because he was right (and made them look bad or feel stupid).
The only people who usually managed to stay friends with him were either those who didn't really HAVE opinions on anything technical (and therefore, didn't have reason to get into any confrontation with him on those topics to begin with), or people like myself, who valued his intelligence and knowledge, and could overlook his lack of tact in dealing with some people.
Perhaps unfortunately, I think the "work world" actually values people's schmoozing abilities over competence in most areas. I lost touch with him for a long time, but last time I checked up on his whereabouts, I was shocked to discover he'd been working low-paying retail jobs selling consumer electronics for years. By all rights, this guy would be WELL qualified to do far more ... but his personality probably made H.R. departments reject him for not being enough of a "team player".
I'm 38, so from the generation before "texting" came along. Still, I'm a big proponent of communications technologies of ALL types. (In fact, that's really why I'm still involved in the computer field today. I got hooked on computers in the 80's, with a Timex Sinclair 1000 PC that only had 2K of RAM and no modem available for it. It was interesting writing my own programs in BASIC and playing games on it, etc. etc. But eventually, I grew bored with it. When I upgraded to a TRS-80 with a 300 baud modem, that's when things really got interesting. All of a sudden, I saw the real future of computing ... enabling new forms of communication!
That said, I think it's always a matter of using the right tool for the right job. My big issue with SMS messaging is that unlike most communications technologies - it doesn't really bring much new to the table. It wouldn't really have ANY value over instant messaging technologies EXCEPT for the fact the cellular carriers designed it to ensure proper delivery. (If someone sends you a text and your phone is turned off, or not getting good reception at that moment, no problem. They hold it and deliver it as soon as they see the receiving phone is ready to accept it.) Meanwhile, they make a killing charging people for texting plans and even *per message* fees if you don't have one, or go over some arbitrary limit. But the amount of data actually transferred is nothing compared to what you can already move for no extra charge, with any type of "data plan" on the phone.
Meanwhile, I have to deal with junk text messages all the time, and texts sent to the wrong number ... so a whole new hassle that never existed before. There's no real ability to block incoming SMS messages either. (I've tried and tried to get Sprint/Nextel to disable incoming texts on a number of our cellphones at work, but they can never seem to successfully do it. We still get random B.S. about calling 900 sex lines, or fake messages from banks about our bank cards being lost and to call some number to straighten it out.)
Texting can be useful, and I occasionally use it. But when I see younger people claiming it's hugely important for them to organize social outings in "today's hectic world", I have to ask why it wasn't "necessary" for us, just 5-10 years earlier? I think the fact is, we learned to be a little more organized. If you didn't call your buddies a day or two ahead to plan a get-together, then good luck getting many people to show up! The fact that SMSing makes it *possible* to plan with almost no advance notice doesn't make it a "good thing". I don't see a net positive about using these tools to further increase the frantic pace of society.
We always talk about that "sad truth" that people won't pay more for quality ... but it tends to come up in the context of one costly item or another that didn't make it. It ignores all the successes. I think the closest thing to the truth is, people will always be tempted by the promise of an "outstandingly good value". We've got numerous businesses today that primarily hawk junky, but low-cost goods, while trying to put a false front of "quality" on the front of the whole operation. People get swindled into buying the lower-cost stuff, with false promises that it's really "just as good as the more expensive version".
People *will* pay more for quality, but they don't want to accidentally pay TOO MUCH for that quality either.
Since you want to drag up the ever-popular Apple comparison, I'll bite with a story of my own.
A while back, I wound up gutting apart my Core 2 Duo P4 full-tower PC clone because one of my best friends needed some repair parts that happened to be just what I had in my system. I figured I'd sell him what he needed, eventually sell some of the rest of it, and just simplify things by getting myself a new "all in one" type PC to put on that desk. I've already slowly switched most of my computer gear to Macs, ever since I worked for a guy who had an all Mac office, and got hooked on OS X ... but decided to go with an HP TouchSmart all-in-one, in this case. After all, it had an actual touch-screen on it, which no iMac has, a kind of cool ambient backlight on it, and so forth. It was even around $200 cheaper than a comparable iMac. So hey, a "deal is a deal" right? No point falling into that trap you mention of paying for "style".
Well, it didn't work out like that at all.... As soon as I went to take the back cover off the TouchSmart to upgrade its 320GB drive to a 1TB SATA I already had lying around, I discovered the shoddy workmanship to the machine. Plastic clips broke off the first time I snapped the shell apart after removing the screws, and the case developed a small crack in one corner when I snapped it all back together. (This thing is obviously not designed to come apart more than once or twice without needing a whole new outer casing!) The computer makes annoying rattling sounds from its cooling fan too, and when I tried to upgrade it to Windows 7 from Vista, found out HP's touch-screen applications software doesn't even work right in 7. The bluetooth mouse feels cheap and eats batteries quickly, too - and to top if all of, the integrated Intel video is SLOW. I would have had a vastly superior machine if I just went with the Apple iMac (better video by a mile, aluminum case instead of cheap plastic, etc. etc.), and I could have set it up to run Windows 7 just fine if I so desired.
So claiming Apple is all about style but not quality, because quality didn't work out for them in sales? Nah... not buying that one. Apple figured out it's best when you do BOTH together.
Maybe it really has to do with MENTAL activity though? You could tell obese people to get off the couch and go for a walk all you like, but if the core problem is that they're mentally lazy, and prefer passive forms of entertainment (like television) to active problem-solving and deep thought, you probably haven't fixed anything for them.
In fact, I think it might be interesting to see if this claimed loss of brain function in obese people applies equally to obese people with a career in the computer field, working as a software developer or something along those lines?
Let me first say I totally agree with your point. But really, I think this is about something different than what most of us logically think it should be about.
I suspect the networks and advertisers are interested, primarily, in who is tuning in to the provided programming in "real time". Even if they find out that a certain TV series is wildly popular with people who recorded it to watch later? They may still be most fixated on the numbers who thought it was worth interrupting their day or night to watch it, as soon as it hit the airwaves.
I'm not in this industry, but I can see how an advertiser would place a lot of value on knowing their commercial is being viewed in a prompt manner by viewers. (EG. If you want to run an ad talking about a special sale "this weekend only!" at your local sandwich shop or car dealership, the ad is rendered useless to anyone who "gets around to watching it" on their DVR the following week.)
I think we obviously HAVE moved on. Do you see a lot of boycotts over IBM products out there, over what happened during WWII? I don't think so.
The point is, Watson was in charge of IBM at that time, and it's clear that despite being in charge of the whole company, his allegiances were to Nazi Germany. (He even accepted the highest civilian honor Hitler could award a person with.)
Nobody's talking about demanding reparations here. I brought the topic up simply to illustrate that large corporations really have no "allegiance" to a country, just because they happen to have a corporate HQ placed there. Their agendas and claimed "requirements" for staying in a place are subject to change at any time, possibly based on nothing more than a change of management.
I recommend reading a book called "IBM and the Holocaust" (http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com).
This is a company that happily accepted huge sums of money from the Germans during WWII to computerize the process of hunting down and exterminating Jews, and even "hardened" several of their facilities so they'd survive Allied bombings. All the while, they claimed to be an American business.
It's arguable that in a sense, they "left" the United States back then, even if they still retained a big physical presence here. Despite the law preventing IBM from being able to move their profits out of German banks during the war, they STILL happily worked on their projects for them, knowing full-well they couldn't even touch the money for years.
Apple's technologies are "definitely overpriced when they don't need to because Jobs himself think he is better than so many"??
1. Companies price their products at whatever price the market will bear. If they don't, they go OUT of business due to lack of sales. Apple is having no problem moving their products at their asking prices. (In fact, they're still building more Apple retail stores at a time when most companies are closing them!)
2. The average person you run into who thinks that Steve Jobs is a "better" person than Bill Gates usually believes that because they've heard so much negativity about Microsoft's products and claimed "anti-competitive" behavior. In most situations, people like to root for the under-dog, all other things being essentially equal, and that's really what you've got here. Microsoft has the lion's share of the operating system market, and Apple stands out as the only company making a serious effort at offering a commercial alternative to that operating system. Outside of "tech geek" circles, I doubt most people know much of anything about the personal lives or behavior of EITHER man.
3. I haven't heard it mentioned very often, but sometimes I wonder if Steve Jobs really has sort of a disdain for "geeks" and techie types who obsess over things like computers and gadgetry? I've read that in his personal life, he likes keeping things pretty basic (having gone for long periods of time owning places that don't even have any real furniture in some of the rooms). We certainly know his clothing choices are pretty basic (doesn't get much more basic than blue-jeans and a black t-shirt). He's also traditionally been obsessed with very "clean" design that sticks to basic shapes, and always seemed to be in pursuit of a very quiet, unobtrusive computer (even when removal of the fans resulted in system temperatures running near the thermal limits of the hardware). He seems to be proud of the company's achievements on the whole, yet dislikes the "hard core" fans enough to financially gouge early-adopters who "gotta have the shiny new product first!" (Polar opposite strategy of what one might expect, where early-adopters get some kind of price BREAK or extra incentive to buy a first revision product....) It reminds me, in some ways, of George Lucas and his treatment of science-fiction fans who blog and rave about the Star Wars franchise. He's often made it clear he can't relate to those types - despite putting out products that would seem to target them directly.
In theory, you might be right, but Cider hasn't really proven to live up to ANY of those promises you mention.
1. Enabling same-day releases? E.A. failed miserably at that with practically all the Cider-enabled titles they announced last year. Madden Football '08 for OS X? Nope... not same day as the Windows version release. Red Alert 3? Nope, had delays.... Ubisoft hasn't fared much better. Shaun White's Snowboarding was out for Windows first.
2. 80% to 90% of Windows performance? Again, maybe ideally - but I don't think Mac gamers are seeing anywhere near that on the titles they're putting out. Things like keyboard response and screen updates are far worse than with the Windows counterparts. I played NFS Carbon for OS X, for example, and on a 2.8Ghz octo-core Mac Pro with 8GB of RAM and an nVidia 8800GT video card, it was laggy/jerky and just all around not that fun to play. I tried it later on a PS3 and it was a night and day playability difference.... I'm pretty sure the Windows version isn't THAT much worse than the PS3 version.
3. Yeah, developers ALWAYS say the Mac doesn't have enough market-share, but that seems like a double-edged sword to me. Windows ALSO has so many more titles to choose from, you'd think you'd have far fewer buyers for any one game release, because the money gets spread out over so many more options. If you release a really good OS X native Mac title, practically EVERYONE interested in gaming on a Mac may well buy your game.
It only seems strange that the PS2 is still selling so well, until you realize that the PS3 really isn't "standard def. TV friendly".... I know quite a few people who play games on their PS2, and bought replacements when their old unit broke/wore out, but have no real interest in a PS3, simply because they're still using a large-ish tube type standard-def TV as their main television set. (If you have cable or satellite, you really have no need to replace it, after all.)
My experience with using a PS3 in standard def resolution was eye-strain inducing, trying to read many of the text fonts the games would display.
There's a pretty big ratio of PS3 owners who coupled the purchase with a new plasma or LCD TV .... partially because they wanted a Blu-Ray player for that fancy new set, but realistically, it's practically a requirement to enjoy many of the game titles too.
"...only PC gamers use the word 'port' with such a fervent degree of repulsion"??
How about Mac OS X users!!?
Every time they give us a "port" these days, it's just someone repackaging the PC game code around the Cider engine, tweaking some of Cider's parameters until it appears to "basically run ok" and then they turn around and charge full retail price for it, AFTER it's been out at least 3 months for the PC already!
Never-mind the PC version might ALREADY have just been ported from a console.....
Your car analogy works just fine, up to the point where I'm arguing that I'm owed a refund on parts of the computer HARDWARE I don't like or want to keep/use. (A refund because I dislike and don't use the touchpad? Same as complaining about back seats in a new car purchase, really.)
But THIS dispute pertains to the whole idea that a system manufacturer can pre-load another company's operating system SOFTWARE onto the computer (complete with legal agreements the end user has to click to accept as binding), and then tell you it was all really "one piece of equipment".
I don't think there's a fair comparison in the world of cars? But I guess if you wanted to force a car analogy to fit here, you'd be talking about something like buying a new Chevy, and the dealer including the "Complete Chevrolet Maintenance and Repair Guide" in the glovebox, and billing you an extra $125 or so for it on your invoice, as one of the line-item "features" on the vehicle. Would you think it was still reasonable to tell everyone to "Skip buying this Chevrolet, because it comes with this unnecessary repair guide!"? Or would you haggle with your salesperson to see if he/she could sell you the car without that book included?
The courts seem to be saying that simply because DVD movies are encrypted, the laws banning unauthorized decryption of said content trump one's "fair use" rights to copy the source material.
(That's the only logical conclusion I can draw from their making the distinction to Real Networks that their unwillingness to "return or destroy" the CSS agreement constituted their loss of rights to market this product.)
Ultimately, such an agreement is either legally binding, or it isn't -- and if "fair use" rights trumped it, then it shouldn't be legally binding anymore.
If you go off and develop your own tool to make DVD backups, you *have* to break the encryption to successfully do it - so once again, you're doing something illegal. The fact you didn't obtain it from someone else seems to be irrelevant. This is why we need to repeal the DMCA.....
But where you and I apparently differ has to do with our views of the viability of a "free marketplace".
I'd say where things REALLY went wrong in the US was where government started bowing to big business interests. When government officials became corrupt enough to allow companies to buy votes, and eventually, to place their own people in office, it all started coming apart.
If you had a far *smaller*, more limited government (as Libertarians are constantly advocating), much of this would be rendered a non-issue. (EG. A large and powerful food and drug administration is a perfect target for special interests like Monsanto to try to "take over", so they can pass legislation stamping out small, organic farms, and force all farmers on-board with buying their genetically modified seeds and pesticides. If government gets out of that arena completely, there's no more advantage for Monsanto to leverage there.)
You can't ever stop corruption. People will always be out there trying to "game" things for personal advantage. But I'd rather have a relatively free and open marketplace out there, where the scammers and manipulators can be pressured and eventually stamped out by their own competition, vs. the potential of the corruption taking hold at the "top of the chain", in a powerful government that's much harder to unseat or "fix".
It's all a matter of perspective ... but I'd maintain that the reason the US has become relatively "unlivable" for many is because we've got this government (and general public) that can't really seem to make their minds up about just WHAT the rules of operation are supposed to be here!
On one hand, you've got people (like the current administration) keenly following the European model of things, and trying to sell all of us on socialism.
On the other hand, you've got quite a few of us who believe our nation ran just fine the way it was originally designed by the "Founding Fathers", and got progressively worse as people tried to dilute it with elements of other types of government.
I take offense to your blanket statement of Libertarians as "inbred morons", because I consider myself a Libertarian - yet far from a "moron". Are there people latching onto that political platform who aren't exactly "firing on all cylinders"? Absolutely. There will always be irresponsible and relatively stupid individuals who think a party advocating "individual rights/freedoms" is the party for them - only because they want to do now illegal stuff and "get away with it" (smoking marijuana, etc. etc.). That doesn't make the entire Libertarian party worthless, though. The L.P. makes one big assumption; that the majority of people grasp that with individual freedoms comes individual responsibility. If you're the type who thinks humans are "inherently bad/evil/stupid" - you'll never be comfortable with libertarian ideals. (And most likely, a political system where people operate for the "collective good" of some "wiser, more sensible" head of government is up your alley.)
Most people I know buying netbooks are doing so because they already own 1 or more computers (often already own a notebook, even), and they just like the idea of having something cheap that could really be brought around anywhere they go without many concerns.
(EG. I have a custom configured Macbook Pro I bought new, last year. Great machine, and I maxxed out the RAM in it, upgraded the hard drive to a 500GB, and got a great carrying bag for it and its accessories. I take it to work regularly and on vacation trips, etc. But with a value of close to $3000 for all of that, possible theft or loss is a big worry. I'm definitely not going to lug it all over the place without a care in the world.... So I got a $200 or so closeout model of eeePC, and that one is pretty disposable by comparison. It's less functional and the screen gives me eyestrain after a while - but it works in a pinch, in places I'd just do without a portable otherwise.)
I suspect a 12" screen netbook is approaching the size where it's a little less convenient to take everywhere. (I can throw my eeePC in my car's glovebox .. but don't think a 12" display netbook would fit.) It also has to carry a bit higher price-tag than a 9" or 10" screen model would carry.
I made another comment on here already, along these lines.... but I'll re-iterate anyway.
I've definitely had interviews where, by the end, I really had no useful questions that came to mind -- simply because after an hour of so of "back and forth" about the company and the job requirements, plus a tour that let me see things ranging from the dress code to the environment employees were working in, there wasn't much left to ask.
To me, saying "I think you've answered all of my questions right now, but I'll definitely follow up with you if I think of anything else." is a perfectly honest and legitimate answer. Certainly looks better than trying to make up some silly question you really wouldn't have asked otherwise, but are trying to throw out there just so the employer can check-off his list that "Yep, they asked me something."
Rather than "red flagging" a person for not having a question at the end of the interview, I think you'd be wise to ask them questions DURING said interview to determine their problem-solving capabilities. (EG. Ask them to tell you about 1 or 2 situations in previous jobs where they encountered a puzzling problem, and how they went about solving it.)
Frankly, I always dreaded the end of the interview, when I get asked that "So, do you have any questions for ME?" part.
People turn the whole process into such a "game", with the employer trying to glean some hidden meaning from every sentence the prospective hire speaks, and the interviewee trying to think of things to ask that will "impress" the employer, instead of just asking anything they'd *really* like to know.
I've definitely had interviews where I really had NO questions worth asking, by the end of a lengthy interview (and tour of the facility). Maybe the interviewer wrote me off because I didn't ask some "magic questions" he was hoping to hear from me ... but I honestly felt like everything I cared to know was already answered satisfactorily. If I thought of anything else, I'd rather email or call them later to find out about it.
Other times, I could tell I was interviewing with a highly technical person in the company, so I probably *did* want to know some details of how their environment was configured. That's not because of some "religious zealotry" ... but simply because as the grandparent poster said, it's informative to know if you're working for a company that embraces "open standards" and supports multiple platforms, or one that uses "closed" technologies, so by extension, is more "hostile" to alternate options. (EG. The small business I work for today is primarily a "Windows" shop, but my personal laptop is a Mac. Initially, the owners had some concern about introducing it to the network environment, and I wound up having to get their outside consultant to back me up, insisting it was "harmless", before they become comfortable with it. If I was working for a larger firm, or one that had web-based apps requiring Direct-X extensions or coded specifically for IE 6 or 7 or something, though, this sort of thing would have been useful to know in advance.)
I dunno.... It might be a bogus story, but so is the concept that Slashdot is here to cover any and all LINUX items of note.
Last I checked, this was supposed to be a tech news site. ("News for Nerds") It never said anywhere that it's about Linux news or promotion, directly. That's just a bias people decided the site had, long ago, when there seemed to be an abnormally large number of Linux or BSD related stories posted - and the comments left encouraged it.
In my experiences, you're absolutely right that many guys feel a need to "be looked up to" - but that's sort of irrelevant, when it comes to figuring out some sort of formula for "relationship success". (EG. I think it's perfectly possible to have a relationship where both partners are essentially "equals", yet both look up to each other -- perhaps for very different reasons.)
Whether you're a guy who has a strong need to feel like your partner "admires some aspect of your personality" or not, you simply need to be paired up with a woman who has similar goals to yours, so you can work as a "team" getting through the "business of life". It's a difference in basic priorities that seems to destroy most marriages. (If the guy, for example, is putting in a lot of hours at work, with a "goal" of ensuring financial security for the family -- problems will develop if the woman doesn't value that goal. Maybe she'd prefer the guy be home more often to "share in household chores" or to "spend more time with the kids"? Or by the same token, if the woman is the primary wage-earner, the guy has to share in the idea that her working those hours adds more "value" to the relationship than having things a different way. Sometimes, I think it's not REALLY even as simple an issue as the man being upset because she "out earns" him and that's non-traditional.... It may be a "power and control" issue, where the primary wage-earner gets to "call the shots" about whether or not a new car is purchased, how much will be spent on going out to dinner or where/how a summer vacation is going to work, etc. etc. "He (she) who has the gold makes the rules." in other words.
This stuff is part of a much bigger issue ... govt. transitioning towards fascism. We're rapidly turning into a police state, under the guise of "keeping us safe from terrorist threats".
The Pirate Party only focuses on one specific issue that interests them, so MANY people who fully agree with their stance still wouldn't take them seriously as a viable political party. (I expect a political candidate I elect to handle a myriad of issues thrown at them. As such, they better have a fairly comprehensive list explaining their positions on the topics. The Pirate Party, last I checked, really didn't even try to weigh in on topics like foreign relations and wars, economic strategies, taxes for small businesses, gun ownership rights, healthcare, public schools (and vouchers for students opting to attend a private school?), or even term-limits for politicians.)
I'd suggest that if you want reform with these issues, you look for candidates advocating smaller government and less govt. control. A "lean" govt. that sticks to the basic, vs. a bloated one with a department for everything imaginable is FAR less likely to waste their time and money prosecuting nonsense like a guy making hardware mods to game systems for a living.
In the last decade or so, Radio Shack seems to have been really pushing to become more of a "boutique electronics retailer", ditching their image as a "parts store" for hobbyists. I guess on one hand, I understand the desire - because there's not a lot of profit in individual sales when your customers want a package of resistors, a spool of wire, or some $10 pliers or cutter tool.
But I don't think their obvious alternative has worked out very well for them either. They're stuck trying to compete with much larger stores like Best Buy, and getting killed merely because Radio Shack doesn't have enough floor space in a store to carry the variety people expect when shopping for a new flat panel TV set or stereo, or computer.
Reminding people that their stores are small "EG. "The Shack" is emphasizing what may be their biggest negative in the market-space they're working in!
Yeah - but not only does MS "not like it" ... They actively spend money on lawyers to harass and threaten anyone they catch attempting to do it (despite "right of first sale" law seeming to be on the side of the consumer on this one).
I tried selling unopened OEM copies of Windows 2000 Professional, years back, with original COA certificates still shrink-wrapped with the media - and the Microsoft legal team got my eBay auctions canceled promptly, and sent me legal threats in email.
Another attempt on Craigslist to do the same with XP got my listings flagged in short order, too.
If you have a personal friend you can make the deal with in person, great... but just saying, it's not always easy to advertise such an offer to others.
Also, aren't some of the CD keys linked to copies of XP designed only for a particular brand of computer? I thought with OEM editions, they created custom XP installation discs for major players like Dell, Toshiba and HP - so a given COA sticker on the side of one of those boxes would only work with a restore/recovery disc made for that manufacturer's systems (uses their BIOS to verify what you're trying to load it on)?