Actually I switched every box in my house to Linux. My boxes were all Gentoo, and Suse for my wife.
She was incredibly pissed at Windows and wanted to increase her geek cred (which is substantial). However, she is back to Win x64. She is pretty smart. But she'd download an RPM, try to install it, then have no clue where the program was because it didn't create an entry in the menu, and she'd have no clue where the program directory was.
Are you telling me that isn't something that would annoy something attempting to switch? Because I can tell you from experience, that alone drove her back to Windows. And it is something so inane, that I can't believe it hasn't been addressed.
With Windows you get what Microsoft serves up to you. When the Linux community decides to make their own OS, you'd think with all the brilliant contributers (and they do exist) I don't understand why consistency and usability fall so far behind.
I'm not asking for anything to be dumbed down. And there is no need to copy Windows on everything. If Linux wasn't different, what would be the point of using it. However, if in a specific instance the Windows method is better, shouldn't it then be preferable? Why must it inherently be bad simply because Windows utilizes it?
Linux is a kernel, not an OS, but in common parlance, Linux might as well refer to the OS.
As an OS Linux is horribly fragmented. That is why people flock to a popular distro like Ubuntu, regardless of whether or not it is the best distro.
Personally, I do believe that the community needs fewer distros. There should be three methods for installing, period. Something like apt-get, emerge and then installing from a downloaded RPM. You shouldn't see different binaries for different distros. A Linux app should be an Linux app, period.
If we had true standards, we'd have fewer distros. But how many methods and standards do we have for installing programs? For file structures? For menu structures?
In what I believe to be a perfect world, there would only be maybe 8 major distributions of Linux.
Home/Personal Developer Media Center Server
For each of those 4, you get a focus on either GTK or QT apps. Regardless, the file structure, configuration files, menu structure, etc. would be the same for every distro.
And while this will NEVER happen, I think we need one major development kit, instead of GTK vs QT. When it comes to aesthetics, visual style and usability, I can certainly understand people wanting a choice between Gnome and KDE. But when I design an app, I should build it on one toolkit, and then it should work on both Gnome and KDE, letting Gnome/KDE handle how it looks, etc. As it stands now, the dependency chains are ridiculous. If I use KDE but want a few GTK apps like Firefox or GAIM, I have to install half of Gnome.
I simply don't understand why this has never been addressed.
The Linux community is always talking about expanding and competing with the Windows world, but they shoot themselves in the foot on trivial details like this.
The response I often get when I ask why don't we change to something that makes more sense is, "if you want a product more like Windows, then use Windows. We don't want our product dumbed down."
However, just because a product is difficult to use does not make it inherently better. I enjoy the flexibility of Linux. I am very comfortable in a command prompt/shell. However, I find it flat-out silly that I truly have to hunt for a program.
The basic file structure of GNU/Linux needs a major overhaul. Furthermore, now that we have menu standards that both KDE and Gnome use, is it too much to ask that programs include themselves in the menu when you install them?
Basic inconsistencies like these frustrate people attempting to switch, and they go right back to Windows.
I haven't played your game, so my comments weren't necessarily direct at you. For what it is worth, I've heard good things about your game.
And no, I don't condone scaring people needlessly, or calling people at 2 in the morning. However, having immersive qualities and good atmosphere helps sell the ARG to the player.
And while not every player can feel they are the center of the story, one can certainly improve on most ARGs in how the player has no role in said story. You can do dead-drops, where certain players are responsible for picking up a physical clue and sharing it with the community. The PM staff can recognize and contact directly players who stand out from the community.
Players can be given choices that move the story forward.
My qualm with most ARGs is that they exist solely as a password hunt. You find the door, and you get a cookie. Games like Beast and Majestic truly scared their players, because the line between game and reality was eerily thin.
I like games with immersion. I enjoy games where the player feels they have a role in the game.
I'm working on a grassroots/indie ARG at the moment that I don't want to talk about too much publicly. If anyone is interested, drop me an email at enderandrew AT gmail DOT com
However, you do not represent the masses. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say the bulk of software purchases come in the corporate world. People at home love to pirate. And most major businesses prefer to go with traditional retail software over a custom-made-Gentoo-build.
Where is the official support for Gentoo? Can you call a 1-800 number? Are the end users knowledgable and familiar with it in the way they are with Windows? How standard is it? How consistent is it?
Many people in the corporate world believe you get what you pay for. And if you pay nothing for F/OSS software, that is exactly what you get.
We use a few F/OSS applications in the corporation I work for (Nagios/VNC) and it was like pulling teeth getting those approved.
Bingo. One can make a strong arguement for nuclear power. It is efficient and clean. Yet we don't seem to want to let anyone have it because it might be a cover for nuclear weapons. What to do?
I think the solution is to put butt-loads of funding into bringing fuel cell technology to the forefront.
If you make your own tools at work, you are the exception, not the rule. Most consumers aren't developers, they are consumers.
You also suggest there is more than one burger joint, and that consumers purchase software based on the quality of said software.
So why then was AOL number 1?
In most categories, I could argue that the leading product is often an inferior product. Given that most CIOs can't differentiate between quality software and well-known software, I don't trust the government to step in and start regulating the industry.
And whether or not there would be any benefit is clearly debatable. This would come out of tax payer's pockets. For the increased cost in spending, how much benefit do you think we'll receive? If the government wags their finger at a developer, do you think they'll switch from operating in "bad programmer" mode to "good programmer"?
Often, when consumers are given the choice they prefer to have software sooner, even in a beta state. We joke about how official releases have made us all beta testers, but that doesn't seem to stop us from purchasing software.
Industry regulation is a very bad idea. It will cripple OSS development. It will place an unnecessary burden on taxpayers to fund the red tape. Furthermore, wouldn't regulation somewhat require the regulators to in the end have access to source code?
Do you think major corporations are just going to hand over source code? Can you imagine the leaks?
Lastly, the government has time and time again demonstrated they have little to no understanding of technology. Do we really want them making sweeping decisions regarding software?
Newspapers like the above are supposed to follow AP Style. Said book lays out different rules for different acronyms. IBM has no periods and is all caps for instance. Others may include lower case letters, or may require periods between the letters.
Plenty of people have pointed out that the name itself has bad connotations, so why keep the name?
Better yet, why completely ditch the hardware?
The problem with the NGage initially was a very poor design. The QD was considerably better. If Nokia truly wants to succeed the game market, perhaps they need to come out with something that is designed well?
Hell, look how much design payed off for the iPod and DS?
The problem with their current strategy is not only are they keeping the wretched name, but by going to normal cell phones, they are doing to an even worse interface system that what they had currently.
Playing games on a cell phone is less than ideal. I liked the concept of a phone/mp3/gaming console. I'd like to see a good one.
However, if rumors are true then Atari is in dire enough financial straights that they may not have had that option. Still, why make it official? Just say that you are putting a temporary hiatus on spending money on NWN until you collect some NWN:2 cash. After everyone has NWN:2, then you just never get around to spending money on NWN again.
http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/
This is definitely worth a read. Many people who are good programmers aren't necessarily good at user interfaces, or worrying about how people will interact with the software. That is an area that open source software really needs to improve on, both in efficiency in usability, and in aesthetics.
However other Word Processors and Office Suites exist. People forge that Word took the market by storm by copying more successful programs like Word Perfect, Abiword, etc.
Wordperfect, OpenOffice, Abiword, KOffice and many others still exist. And the new version of Office has been shaped and inspired by competition. Note the PDF printing feature.
If this were a complete monoculture, we wouldn't see such features spurred on by competition. Office dominates the market, but it does not exist in the market as the only app.
Yes, Google did it first. Microsoft's main business strategy seems to be copying Google at the moment. However, is this evil or bad to encourage open source coding?
No, not in the least. I'm sure we all wish the project was more like Google's Summer of Code, but I'm just commenting that I believe this to be a smart business decision on the part of Microsoft.
Despite comparisons to Google's Summer of Code (which is far more generous to the community on the whole) this is in fact a smart move for Microsoft. They get code on the cheap, and PR at the whole time.
If I ran a business like Microsoft, I'd be doing the same type of things.
Here's the thing. Plenty of people who work for movie companies are probably pretty clueless when it comes to technology. Sony isn't. The ICT tag and HDMI outputs really don't stop piracy in the least bit. Plenty of companies will push for DRM, but Sony may have the smarts to see through ICT for what it really is. I'm willing to bet that the primary reason the movie companies are backing off ICT right now is because Sony pressured them.
Big corporations love stability. They love consistency. They fear the unknown. They love going with the de facto standard, and keeping it standard across the board. So while people may argue against monoculture, don't expect it to change in big corporate environments.
And MAYBE part of the reason Word is being infected with worms, isn't some side-effect of monoculture and the lack of software diversity, but rather a result of hackers almost solely targeting Microsoft products.
The fact remains that even when you turn down the graphic details in HL2, there is no way it could run on a 733mhz Celeron with 64 megs of total ram (system and video).
Oblivion is trumping many top end PCs right now even at low resolutions, yet it runs in 720p on the 360. 5 years ago people said the PS2 and XBox didn't compare to gaming PCs at the time, but in their actual capabilities are pure gaming machines, they easily trumped gaming machines of their time. So it stands to reason that the 360 and PS3 which represent HUGE leaps in processing power can safely compare to a gaming PC released today for $2,000.
And I love how you say that pure computational power is meaningless. Sure.
Sorry, that is incorrect. HDMI cables will never be offered for the 360 for the very same reason the $500 PS3 can't be upgraded to HDMI. You can't just release a cable upgrade for an analog signal to become a digital signal. There are converter boxes which run $100, and those are low-quality.
Even take an analog signal through one of those $100 converter boxes? It comes out looking like crap.
60% of all Americans (145 million people) play video games
43% of all gamers are women; 60% of all gamers are 25 to 44 years old
Gaming #1 Preferred 2 to 1 over TV, And Others Movies, Books & Internet
87% who purchase console games are over 18
97% who purchase PCs are adults
http://www.games-advertising.com/demographics.html
I read six reviews on the AM2 line yesterday, and they all said the new AM2 processors used considerably less power than the 939 processors, which used considerably less power than the baseline P4 series.
So I'm calling bullshit, and quoting an article to prove it.
And anyone who argues clockspeed doesn't know processors. You don't compare directly at clockspeed. You compare processors at similiar prices and performance. Clockspeed is the most deceptive thing in the world.
AMD 5000+ Max Thermal Power: 130 W
http://www.planetx64.com/index.php?option=com_cont ent&task=view&id=215&Itemid=14&limit=1&limitstart= 1
Sorry, but try again. Intel does not currently have a processor on the market that beats AMD.
Sony fought to make the components in the PS2 cheap at launch. However, the PS3 is their shot at winning the format war. I don't see them putting a shitty BluRay player in the thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I switched every box in my house to Linux. My boxes were all Gentoo, and Suse for my wife.
She was incredibly pissed at Windows and wanted to increase her geek cred (which is substantial). However, she is back to Win x64. She is pretty smart. But she'd download an RPM, try to install it, then have no clue where the program was because it didn't create an entry in the menu, and she'd have no clue where the program directory was.
Are you telling me that isn't something that would annoy something attempting to switch? Because I can tell you from experience, that alone drove her back to Windows. And it is something so inane, that I can't believe it hasn't been addressed.
With Windows you get what Microsoft serves up to you. When the Linux community decides to make their own OS, you'd think with all the brilliant contributers (and they do exist) I don't understand why consistency and usability fall so far behind.
I'm not asking for anything to be dumbed down. And there is no need to copy Windows on everything. If Linux wasn't different, what would be the point of using it. However, if in a specific instance the Windows method is better, shouldn't it then be preferable? Why must it inherently be bad simply because Windows utilizes it?
Linux is a kernel, not an OS, but in common parlance, Linux might as well refer to the OS.
As an OS Linux is horribly fragmented. That is why people flock to a popular distro like Ubuntu, regardless of whether or not it is the best distro.
Personally, I do believe that the community needs fewer distros. There should be three methods for installing, period. Something like apt-get, emerge and then installing from a downloaded RPM. You shouldn't see different binaries for different distros. A Linux app should be an Linux app, period.
If we had true standards, we'd have fewer distros. But how many methods and standards do we have for installing programs? For file structures? For menu structures?
In what I believe to be a perfect world, there would only be maybe 8 major distributions of Linux.
Home/Personal
Developer
Media Center
Server
For each of those 4, you get a focus on either GTK or QT apps. Regardless, the file structure, configuration files, menu structure, etc. would be the same for every distro.
And while this will NEVER happen, I think we need one major development kit, instead of GTK vs QT. When it comes to aesthetics, visual style and usability, I can certainly understand people wanting a choice between Gnome and KDE. But when I design an app, I should build it on one toolkit, and then it should work on both Gnome and KDE, letting Gnome/KDE handle how it looks, etc. As it stands now, the dependency chains are ridiculous. If I use KDE but want a few GTK apps like Firefox or GAIM, I have to install half of Gnome.
I know this is a major complaint of mine.
I simply don't understand why this has never been addressed.
The Linux community is always talking about expanding and competing with the Windows world, but they shoot themselves in the foot on trivial details like this.
The response I often get when I ask why don't we change to something that makes more sense is, "if you want a product more like Windows, then use Windows. We don't want our product dumbed down."
However, just because a product is difficult to use does not make it inherently better. I enjoy the flexibility of Linux. I am very comfortable in a command prompt/shell. However, I find it flat-out silly that I truly have to hunt for a program.
The basic file structure of GNU/Linux needs a major overhaul. Furthermore, now that we have menu standards that both KDE and Gnome use, is it too much to ask that programs include themselves in the menu when you install them?
Basic inconsistencies like these frustrate people attempting to switch, and they go right back to Windows.
I haven't played your game, so my comments weren't necessarily direct at you. For what it is worth, I've heard good things about your game.
And no, I don't condone scaring people needlessly, or calling people at 2 in the morning. However, having immersive qualities and good atmosphere helps sell the ARG to the player.
And while not every player can feel they are the center of the story, one can certainly improve on most ARGs in how the player has no role in said story. You can do dead-drops, where certain players are responsible for picking up a physical clue and sharing it with the community. The PM staff can recognize and contact directly players who stand out from the community.
Players can be given choices that move the story forward.
My qualm with most ARGs is that they exist solely as a password hunt. You find the door, and you get a cookie. Games like Beast and Majestic truly scared their players, because the line between game and reality was eerily thin.
I like games with immersion. I enjoy games where the player feels they have a role in the game.
I'm working on a grassroots/indie ARG at the moment that I don't want to talk about too much publicly. If anyone is interested, drop me an email at enderandrew AT gmail DOT com
We have a power station in Nebraska that operates off fuel cell technology.
As a fellow Gentoo user, I can relate.
However, you do not represent the masses. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say the bulk of software purchases come in the corporate world. People at home love to pirate. And most major businesses prefer to go with traditional retail software over a custom-made-Gentoo-build.
Where is the official support for Gentoo? Can you call a 1-800 number? Are the end users knowledgable and familiar with it in the way they are with Windows? How standard is it? How consistent is it?
Many people in the corporate world believe you get what you pay for. And if you pay nothing for F/OSS software, that is exactly what you get.
We use a few F/OSS applications in the corporation I work for (Nagios/VNC) and it was like pulling teeth getting those approved.
Bingo. One can make a strong arguement for nuclear power. It is efficient and clean. Yet we don't seem to want to let anyone have it because it might be a cover for nuclear weapons. What to do?
I think the solution is to put butt-loads of funding into bringing fuel cell technology to the forefront.
If you make your own tools at work, you are the exception, not the rule. Most consumers aren't developers, they are consumers.
You also suggest there is more than one burger joint, and that consumers purchase software based on the quality of said software.
So why then was AOL number 1?
In most categories, I could argue that the leading product is often an inferior product. Given that most CIOs can't differentiate between quality software and well-known software, I don't trust the government to step in and start regulating the industry.
And whether or not there would be any benefit is clearly debatable. This would come out of tax payer's pockets. For the increased cost in spending, how much benefit do you think we'll receive? If the government wags their finger at a developer, do you think they'll switch from operating in "bad programmer" mode to "good programmer"?
Often, when consumers are given the choice they prefer to have software sooner, even in a beta state. We joke about how official releases have made us all beta testers, but that doesn't seem to stop us from purchasing software.
Industry regulation is a very bad idea. It will cripple OSS development. It will place an unnecessary burden on taxpayers to fund the red tape. Furthermore, wouldn't regulation somewhat require the regulators to in the end have access to source code?
Do you think major corporations are just going to hand over source code? Can you imagine the leaks?
Lastly, the government has time and time again demonstrated they have little to no understanding of technology. Do we really want them making sweeping decisions regarding software?
Newspapers like the above are supposed to follow AP Style. Said book lays out different rules for different acronyms. IBM has no periods and is all caps for instance. Others may include lower case letters, or may require periods between the letters.
I hated having to remember AP Style.
Plenty of people have pointed out that the name itself has bad connotations, so why keep the name?
Better yet, why completely ditch the hardware?
The problem with the NGage initially was a very poor design. The QD was considerably better. If Nokia truly wants to succeed the game market, perhaps they need to come out with something that is designed well?
Hell, look how much design payed off for the iPod and DS?
The problem with their current strategy is not only are they keeping the wretched name, but by going to normal cell phones, they are doing to an even worse interface system that what they had currently.
Playing games on a cell phone is less than ideal. I liked the concept of a phone/mp3/gaming console. I'd like to see a good one.
However, if rumors are true then Atari is in dire enough financial straights that they may not have had that option. Still, why make it official? Just say that you are putting a temporary hiatus on spending money on NWN until you collect some NWN:2 cash. After everyone has NWN:2, then you just never get around to spending money on NWN again.
http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/ This is definitely worth a read. Many people who are good programmers aren't necessarily good at user interfaces, or worrying about how people will interact with the software. That is an area that open source software really needs to improve on, both in efficiency in usability, and in aesthetics.
However other Word Processors and Office Suites exist. People forge that Word took the market by storm by copying more successful programs like Word Perfect, Abiword, etc.
Wordperfect, OpenOffice, Abiword, KOffice and many others still exist. And the new version of Office has been shaped and inspired by competition. Note the PDF printing feature.
If this were a complete monoculture, we wouldn't see such features spurred on by competition. Office dominates the market, but it does not exist in the market as the only app.
Yes, Google did it first. Microsoft's main business strategy seems to be copying Google at the moment. However, is this evil or bad to encourage open source coding?
No, not in the least. I'm sure we all wish the project was more like Google's Summer of Code, but I'm just commenting that I believe this to be a smart business decision on the part of Microsoft.
Despite comparisons to Google's Summer of Code (which is far more generous to the community on the whole) this is in fact a smart move for Microsoft. They get code on the cheap, and PR at the whole time.
If I ran a business like Microsoft, I'd be doing the same type of things.
Here's the thing. Plenty of people who work for movie companies are probably pretty clueless when it comes to technology. Sony isn't. The ICT tag and HDMI outputs really don't stop piracy in the least bit. Plenty of companies will push for DRM, but Sony may have the smarts to see through ICT for what it really is. I'm willing to bet that the primary reason the movie companies are backing off ICT right now is because Sony pressured them.
And MAYBE part of the reason Word is being infected with worms, isn't some side-effect of monoculture and the lack of software diversity, but rather a result of hackers almost solely targeting Microsoft products.
The fact remains that even when you turn down the graphic details in HL2, there is no way it could run on a 733mhz Celeron with 64 megs of total ram (system and video).
Oblivion is trumping many top end PCs right now even at low resolutions, yet it runs in 720p on the 360. 5 years ago people said the PS2 and XBox didn't compare to gaming PCs at the time, but in their actual capabilities are pure gaming machines, they easily trumped gaming machines of their time. So it stands to reason that the 360 and PS3 which represent HUGE leaps in processing power can safely compare to a gaming PC released today for $2,000.
And I love how you say that pure computational power is meaningless. Sure.
Sorry, that is incorrect. HDMI cables will never be offered for the 360 for the very same reason the $500 PS3 can't be upgraded to HDMI. You can't just release a cable upgrade for an analog signal to become a digital signal. There are converter boxes which run $100, and those are low-quality.
Even take an analog signal through one of those $100 converter boxes? It comes out looking like crap.
60% of all Americans (145 million people) play video games 43% of all gamers are women; 60% of all gamers are 25 to 44 years old Gaming #1 Preferred 2 to 1 over TV, And Others Movies, Books & Internet 87% who purchase console games are over 18 97% who purchase PCs are adults http://www.games-advertising.com/demographics.html
I read six reviews on the AM2 line yesterday, and they all said the new AM2 processors used considerably less power than the 939 processors, which used considerably less power than the baseline P4 series. So I'm calling bullshit, and quoting an article to prove it. And anyone who argues clockspeed doesn't know processors. You don't compare directly at clockspeed. You compare processors at similiar prices and performance. Clockspeed is the most deceptive thing in the world. AMD 5000+ Max Thermal Power: 130 W http://www.planetx64.com/index.php?option=com_cont ent&task=view&id=215&Itemid=14&limit=1&limitstart= 1
Sorry, but try again. Intel does not currently have a processor on the market that beats AMD.
Sony fought to make the components in the PS2 cheap at launch. However, the PS3 is their shot at winning the format war. I don't see them putting a shitty BluRay player in the thing.
That's because Sam's Club carries older models of DLP with first generation DLP chips. I promise you any DLP TV supporting 1080p however is new.