My real name is Eric O'Dell; I'm the random software engineer whom Andrew Leonard quotes in his article.
The sense I got from my conversations with him was that he was overall positive about Linux, the progress it's making, and its prospects for the future. That perhaps doesn't come out very clearly in this review, but he was quite fair and reasonable and willing to learn in email.
Linux does have some serious shortcomings with respect for the point-and-drool Windows user, and some way to present a foolproof interface to those users will be necessary if we care to capture that market -- and I realize that not all of us do. There are legitimate concerns about fragmentation and incompatibility; the fact that they will probably be resolved in the near-term future doesn't constitute any kind of guarantee. These are things that I worry about, and I'm pretty confident about Linux.
The thing that most struck me about Andrew Leonard was that he seemed reasonable, friendly, and open-minded. I'd say he's probably a good journalist for us to approach -- politely, mind you -- to discuss our opinions about Linux and Open Source. Just bear in mind that the absence of a glowing review is not necessarily a slam, and that criticisms don't necessarily constitute FUD.
Not that bad of a review, frankly
on
NOS Crossroads
·
· Score: 3
I wouldn't say that this was a bad review, especially considering that ZD would have dismissed Linux out of hand scarcely a year ago. Linux is harder to configure than NT, tuning information is a lot harder to find, finding a patch to match your kernel revision is an unholy pain in the butt, and you do need more competent staff to administer it than you do with NT's point-and-drool interface. This is not news. To their credit, they did say -- essentially -- that the higher learning curve associated with Linux is repaid by greater power and flexibility. Considering what an big corporate lackey ZD is, that's no small admission.
You're not alone. This era is full of contempt for the proper use of language. Oddly enough, this is particularly true of programmers, many of whom would cheerfully beat you to death for failing to adhere to OOP idioms in C++, but who will butcher English without a second thought.
I think it's generally agreed that we all have or ought to have a right to free speech. But what Jon Katz is talking about is not a right to free speech, it's a right to harrass. I submit to you that I have a fundamental right NOT to listen to you for any reason I deem fit. It may be because I think your ideas are stupid, boring, offensive, or poorly presented. It may be just because I don't like the way you look. It really doesn't matter whether I have a good reason or a bad reason or no reason at all; I don't have to justify my use of my rights.
I think kill filters are great. They enable me to filter out not only people I find annoying, but -- to take Usenet as an example -- to filter out uninteresting subtopics in high-traffic newsgroups. I use filters to eliminate much of the spam I would otherwise receive via email. Filters help me concentrate on my interests and get more value for my time on the net.
I understand Jon's concern that filters could make it easy to ignore, say, a pressing social issue. But people do that anyway, and you're not going to win any converts by holding someone down and forcing them to listen to you.
It is worth noting that despite the fact that I find most of Jon's writing to be the kind of tediously trendy, poorly reasoned, pop-culture fluff I have come to associate with rags like Wired, I haven't filtered him out, and I occasionally read his articles just in case he accidentally had something worthwhile to say. I am even resisting the temptation to filter him out just for having the audacity to tell me that I shouldn't.
I do, however, reserve the right to change my mind about that.
After this, the next time I'm working on some patently useless exercise in self-amusement, I will never, ever again feel like I just have too much time on my hands. I pity the fool who demands a practical use for my orthographic aesthetics engine!
You can trademark a common noun, but only in a very specific context. Apple Computer can, for example, sue other computer hardware and software outfits for using "Apple", but would have a hard time attacking apple farmers or Apple Records.
Sounds to me that these Earth Shoes people have no case, and they're trying to see if the expense of retaining an attorney will be enough to scare this poor guy out of his domain name.
Adobe is (excepting their high prices) one of the few commercial software companies I have an unalloyed liking for. Their software is well-designed, feature-rich, and as close to bug free as any large applications I have ever seen. Maybe they'll keep Draw! and clean out its impressive array of bugs and give it import/export filters and color matching that actually work.
Slashdot Mirror
The sense I got from my conversations with him was that he was overall positive about Linux, the progress it's making, and its prospects for the future. That perhaps doesn't come out very clearly in this review, but he was quite fair and reasonable and willing to learn in email.
Linux does have some serious shortcomings with respect for the point-and-drool Windows user, and some way to present a foolproof interface to those users will be necessary if we care to capture that market -- and I realize that not all of us do. There are legitimate concerns about fragmentation and incompatibility; the fact that they will probably be resolved in the near-term future doesn't constitute any kind of guarantee. These are things that I worry about, and I'm pretty confident about Linux.
The thing that most struck me about Andrew Leonard was that he seemed reasonable, friendly, and open-minded. I'd say he's probably a good journalist for us to approach -- politely, mind you -- to discuss our opinions about Linux and Open Source. Just bear in mind that the absence of a glowing review is not necessarily a slam, and that criticisms don't necessarily constitute FUD.
I wouldn't say that this was a bad review, especially considering that ZD would have dismissed Linux out of hand scarcely a year ago. Linux is harder to configure than NT, tuning information is a lot harder to find, finding a patch to match your kernel revision is an unholy pain in the butt, and you do need more competent staff to administer it than you do with NT's point-and-drool interface. This is not news. To their credit, they did say -- essentially -- that the higher learning curve associated with Linux is repaid by greater power and flexibility. Considering what an big corporate lackey ZD is, that's no small admission.
You're not alone. This era is full of contempt for the proper use of language. Oddly enough, this is particularly true of programmers, many of whom would cheerfully beat you to death for failing to adhere to OOP idioms in C++, but who will butcher English without a second thought.
I think it's generally agreed that we all have or ought to have a right to free speech. But what Jon Katz is talking about is not a right to free speech, it's a right to harrass. I submit to you that I have a fundamental right NOT to listen to you for any reason I deem fit. It may be because I think your ideas are stupid, boring, offensive, or poorly presented. It may be just because I don't like the way you look. It really doesn't matter whether I have a good reason or a bad reason or no reason at all; I don't have to justify my use of my rights.
I think kill filters are great. They enable me to filter out not only people I find annoying, but -- to take Usenet as an example -- to filter out uninteresting subtopics in high-traffic newsgroups. I use filters to eliminate much of the spam I would otherwise receive via email. Filters help me concentrate on my interests and get more value for my time on the net.
I understand Jon's concern that filters could make it easy to ignore, say, a pressing social issue. But people do that anyway, and you're not going to win any converts by holding someone down and forcing them to listen to you.
It is worth noting that despite the fact that I find most of Jon's writing to be the kind of tediously trendy, poorly reasoned, pop-culture fluff I have come to associate with rags like Wired, I haven't filtered him out, and I occasionally read his articles just in case he accidentally had something worthwhile to say. I am even resisting the temptation to filter him out just for having the audacity to tell me that I shouldn't.
I do, however, reserve the right to change my mind about that.
I sure wish the facts had been ascertained before I wrote that scathing email to the FCC...
After this, the next time I'm working on some patently useless exercise in self-amusement, I will never, ever again feel like I just have too much time on my hands. I pity the fool who demands a practical use for my orthographic aesthetics engine!
What, you mean like "Apple"?
You can trademark a common noun, but only in a very specific context. Apple Computer can, for example, sue other computer hardware and software outfits for using "Apple", but would have a hard time attacking apple farmers or Apple Records.
Sounds to me that these Earth Shoes people have no case, and they're trying to see if the expense of retaining an attorney will be enough to scare this poor guy out of his domain name.
Adobe is (excepting their high prices) one of the few commercial software companies I have an unalloyed liking for. Their software is well-designed, feature-rich, and as close to bug free as any large applications I have ever seen. Maybe they'll keep Draw! and clean out its impressive array of bugs and give it import/export filters and color matching that actually work.