Sometime in the mid-90s the guy I was training and I were having a discussion about the future of technology while we were driving down the road in rural south Texas. I had a bag phone and an IBM Model 70 portable (lugable). He had a Zarus. We both carried pagers. A big part of the conversation was about how someday, we wouldn't need to carry all that crap just to do our job. We both knew that someday all of this stuff would be a single device. Just not a clue what that device would be or how it could work.
Today, about 15 years later, we still work together. I carry a Palm Treo and he has a iPhone. Different job, but mostly do the same thing, just not consultants anymore. I don't think either one of us could do our job without these gadgets. The ability
to ssh into our systems is key to our jobs, and it doesn't really matter what device we use anymore. The gadgets are getting to be more than just a convenience for both of us. They almost define our function in the job. Even if we're out of the office, we still take care of issues, now, not when we get back.
The gadgets have raised expectations for a lot of positions. If I still worked like I did back in the 90s, people would be waiting either until I got there, or got where I could hit a phone line and modem. Now, with the internet (ultimate gadget) and a smart phone, I can fix most problems at 70mph running down the road (as a passenger, of course, not going to break any laws, ha). And that's become almost an expectation.
So, yes I kind of see this as the decade of the gadget, but the gadgets mostly control us.
Did the same thing. Traded in a 86 Suburban for a Ford Ranger. Be a little tighter fit for some of my work junk, but I think it'll work out. Suburban had over 300k miles on it and was shot. And the 24 mpg vs the 8 mpg is a nice benefit too. Was looking anyway, but the $4,500 to go with the Ranger instead of a F150 couldn't be passed up.
I just hope I can get 20+ years out of this one.
I've wondered about this too. Economics just about guarentee that at some point any device will become too expensive to update or maintain for it's origional purpose. Why not think of another purpose for the Hubble or nearly any other retired space junk. If we de-orbit it, we get to see it burn up, but we really don't learn much from that, we just get the junk out of the way. There has to be somebody somewhere that has an idea of some way to get some kind of useful information from old space junk.
It's a very well know mass and could be used as a test platform for ion engines or other propulsion devices. If we were to some how attach some form of experimental engine to it and push it out to a higher orbit not only would we get some good data on the propulsion system, we could eventually have it somewhere where we might be able to re-purpose it, maybe turn it around, modify the electonics and use it to measure ocean levels or maybe cloud cover.
Tack a solar sail on it and point it at a right angle to the earth's orbit. Track it and see what the solar wind does to it. The information may not be as interesting as deep space pictures, but it could give someone more insight on solar weather or solar sail design.
Another option might be to intentionaly try to bounce it off the earth's atmosphere. If we fail and it burns up, well, we were going to do that anyway, if not, we may end up learning more about design stresses, or predicting other types of failures.
It seems like we have an oportunity to take a very well know object and learn what happens if we push it beyond it's design limits. Anything we do with it would be better than just burning it up.
I mostly agree with this, except, some of us older people have already given up on print news and TV. Computer illiterate wife still lives for TV and a dozen magazine subscriptions, but I get all the news I want from the net. I do still subscribe to Scientific American because I still need something to read when I'm in the "library" first thing every morning. That's going to keep a few of the better publications going, but the rest are probably rather short lived.
My one assension was with a Ranger. I personally would consider getting a tourist past the mines a bit of an accomplishment, probably my poorest character. Wizards and healers are both fun, but it's almost a different game with them.
openSuSE 10.3 is definately a keeper. I've been using SuSE for quite some time, and this one is by far the best. I'm pretty sure if the average home user was put in front of this, pre-loaded of course (let's keep it on an even footing with what they've seen before) they would have very little problem functioning the same as they did on their old Windows box.
The biggest problem I see with the article, is most home users are going to be terrified of installing any OS, no matter how easy it is. For this to work, the vendors are still going to have to pre-install some OS on most computers. The majority of computer users see the computer as an appliance much the same as a microwave oven. It just has a different function,and a lot more buttons. For them to install an OS on their computer, it'd have to be a 0 click option, just put the cd in, and turn it on. Even then, many would opt for the vendor to do that install, even for a price.
This just moves the problem to a different level. Now, we have vendors that are used to supporting Windows, maybe learning to support a few of the different linux distributions. So is the industry supposed to get behind the top 2 or 3 or 5 or 10 or how many distributions? What about BSD. It will cost them something to support each of those, and that cost is going to have to be paid by the consumer. It would be very easy for the market to evolve into, buy Dell and get Windows or Ubuntu, or by HP and get Windows or openSuSE, or by brand X and get distribution Y, etc. At what point does it become a problem that only the top few choices are all that's available to most people? When does it become an issue to what part of the cost of that computer is to install something just to make it work?
Personally, I think linux is a good choice for many people, it's just the cost of the learning curve that is a little unsettling. It's going to have to happen sometime, so I guess now is as good as any. I just think it's wrong to look at it as computer + Windows = cost of computer + cost of Windows, and computer + linux = only cost of computer. There will be a cost for installation for most people. Hopefully in the form of a little business for the neighborhood computer geek, but a cost to the consumer none the less. The reality of the situation is the vendor is going to look at what drives the sales, and selling that appliance is what most people expect. If it costs X to install any OS on the computer, the price of their computer is going to be increased by X.
The next issue that has to be addressed is when you go to your local major discount store and look for software, Windows software is the only thing available. For at least the time it takes for the market to decide what's going to happen with OS sales, they're going to have to find some way to either make offerings of similar products to all platforms, or find some way for grandpa to understand that that wonderful game, written for Windows, won't easily run on his Debian computer. The only wine he knows about comes in a bottle, and he sure isn't going to be happy when he gets that purchase home, and WalMart isn't going too look to good in his eyes when they tell him he can't return it because he opened the package.
There is another market that has worked out most of these problems. Most of us are part of it, and it's our expectations that make the difference. Very few of us have a problem understanding that those Ford parts just won't work on that VW, and if there's anything more major than "installing" fuel, most of us take it to a mechanic. We expect to pay for upgrades and repairs to our automobiles, and have no problem with it. There of course is that group of car geeks that do it all themselves, but isn't that the same as the computer geeks? It's going to take a bit of time for the computer market to mature to that point.
All in all, I'm not sure the market place is ready for a change like this, but I would like to see it happen, if not now, in the near future.
Slashdot Mirror
I have this problem exactly. And even if I did document it, I probably assumed that what ever it was doing was obvious so didn't really spell it out.
I had to double check that today wasn't April 1st. This has to be some kind of joke.
Sometime in the mid-90s the guy I was training and I were having a discussion about the future of technology while we were driving down the road in rural south Texas. I had a bag phone and an IBM Model 70 portable (lugable). He had a Zarus. We both carried pagers. A big part of the conversation was about how someday, we wouldn't need to carry all that crap just to do our job. We both knew that someday all of this stuff would be a single device. Just not a clue what that device would be or how it could work.
Today, about 15 years later, we still work together. I carry a Palm Treo and he has a iPhone. Different job, but mostly do the same thing, just not consultants anymore. I don't think either one of us could do our job without these gadgets. The ability
to ssh into our systems is key to our jobs, and it doesn't really matter what device we use anymore. The gadgets are getting to be more than just a convenience for both of us. They almost define our function in the job. Even if we're out of the office, we still take care of issues, now, not when we get back.
The gadgets have raised expectations for a lot of positions. If I still worked like I did back in the 90s, people would be waiting either until I got there, or got where I could hit a phone line and modem. Now, with the internet (ultimate gadget) and a smart phone, I can fix most problems at 70mph running down the road (as a passenger, of course, not going to break any laws, ha). And that's become almost an expectation.
So, yes I kind of see this as the decade of the gadget, but the gadgets mostly control us.
God help us all.
Did the same thing. Traded in a 86 Suburban for a Ford Ranger. Be a little tighter fit for some of my work junk, but I think it'll work out. Suburban had over 300k miles on it and was shot. And the 24 mpg vs the 8 mpg is a nice benefit too. Was looking anyway, but the $4,500 to go with the Ranger instead of a F150 couldn't be passed up. I just hope I can get 20+ years out of this one.
I've played with it some too. Great way to make a custom live cd with My Stuff. Suse and team do really need to get recognized for this.
I've wondered about this too. Economics just about guarentee that at some point any device will become too expensive to update or maintain for it's origional purpose. Why not think of another purpose for the Hubble or nearly any other retired space junk. If we de-orbit it, we get to see it burn up, but we really don't learn much from that, we just get the junk out of the way. There has to be somebody somewhere that has an idea of some way to get some kind of useful information from old space junk. It's a very well know mass and could be used as a test platform for ion engines or other propulsion devices. If we were to some how attach some form of experimental engine to it and push it out to a higher orbit not only would we get some good data on the propulsion system, we could eventually have it somewhere where we might be able to re-purpose it, maybe turn it around, modify the electonics and use it to measure ocean levels or maybe cloud cover. Tack a solar sail on it and point it at a right angle to the earth's orbit. Track it and see what the solar wind does to it. The information may not be as interesting as deep space pictures, but it could give someone more insight on solar weather or solar sail design. Another option might be to intentionaly try to bounce it off the earth's atmosphere. If we fail and it burns up, well, we were going to do that anyway, if not, we may end up learning more about design stresses, or predicting other types of failures. It seems like we have an oportunity to take a very well know object and learn what happens if we push it beyond it's design limits. Anything we do with it would be better than just burning it up.
Looking for the same thing. insecure.org has some info, but not a word on how to do the scan.
I mostly agree with this, except, some of us older people have already given up on print news and TV. Computer illiterate wife still lives for TV and a dozen magazine subscriptions, but I get all the news I want from the net. I do still subscribe to Scientific American because I still need something to read when I'm in the "library" first thing every morning. That's going to keep a few of the better publications going, but the rest are probably rather short lived.
My one assension was with a Ranger. I personally would consider getting a tourist past the mines a bit of an accomplishment, probably my poorest character. Wizards and healers are both fun, but it's almost a different game with them.
Thanks. I've only had one assension so far, so going to need it. Been playing for years. Very addicting game.
openSuSE 10.3 is definately a keeper. I've been using SuSE for quite some time, and this one is by far the best. I'm pretty sure if the average home user was put in front of this, pre-loaded of course (let's keep it on an even footing with what they've seen before) they would have very little problem functioning the same as they did on their old Windows box. The biggest problem I see with the article, is most home users are going to be terrified of installing any OS, no matter how easy it is. For this to work, the vendors are still going to have to pre-install some OS on most computers. The majority of computer users see the computer as an appliance much the same as a microwave oven. It just has a different function,and a lot more buttons. For them to install an OS on their computer, it'd have to be a 0 click option, just put the cd in, and turn it on. Even then, many would opt for the vendor to do that install, even for a price. This just moves the problem to a different level. Now, we have vendors that are used to supporting Windows, maybe learning to support a few of the different linux distributions. So is the industry supposed to get behind the top 2 or 3 or 5 or 10 or how many distributions? What about BSD. It will cost them something to support each of those, and that cost is going to have to be paid by the consumer. It would be very easy for the market to evolve into, buy Dell and get Windows or Ubuntu, or by HP and get Windows or openSuSE, or by brand X and get distribution Y, etc. At what point does it become a problem that only the top few choices are all that's available to most people? When does it become an issue to what part of the cost of that computer is to install something just to make it work? Personally, I think linux is a good choice for many people, it's just the cost of the learning curve that is a little unsettling. It's going to have to happen sometime, so I guess now is as good as any. I just think it's wrong to look at it as computer + Windows = cost of computer + cost of Windows, and computer + linux = only cost of computer. There will be a cost for installation for most people. Hopefully in the form of a little business for the neighborhood computer geek, but a cost to the consumer none the less. The reality of the situation is the vendor is going to look at what drives the sales, and selling that appliance is what most people expect. If it costs X to install any OS on the computer, the price of their computer is going to be increased by X. The next issue that has to be addressed is when you go to your local major discount store and look for software, Windows software is the only thing available. For at least the time it takes for the market to decide what's going to happen with OS sales, they're going to have to find some way to either make offerings of similar products to all platforms, or find some way for grandpa to understand that that wonderful game, written for Windows, won't easily run on his Debian computer. The only wine he knows about comes in a bottle, and he sure isn't going to be happy when he gets that purchase home, and WalMart isn't going too look to good in his eyes when they tell him he can't return it because he opened the package. There is another market that has worked out most of these problems. Most of us are part of it, and it's our expectations that make the difference. Very few of us have a problem understanding that those Ford parts just won't work on that VW, and if there's anything more major than "installing" fuel, most of us take it to a mechanic. We expect to pay for upgrades and repairs to our automobiles, and have no problem with it. There of course is that group of car geeks that do it all themselves, but isn't that the same as the computer geeks? It's going to take a bit of time for the computer market to mature to that point. All in all, I'm not sure the market place is ready for a change like this, but I would like to see it happen, if not now, in the near future.