It's seems a little useless to have a free printing subsystem, but the collection of drivers is $300-$500. Granted Laserjet and Deskjet is a big part of the market, but... Does this mean that this thing needs to be drydocked until the community rewrites enough printer drivers to be truly universal? Also, is this truly that big an advance? Does it bring printing under Unix up the standards of NT/Windows (or for that matter, the Mac)?
You sound like the 3rd grader who says "Why should I learn the multiplication tables? That's too hard. I can just use a calculator!"
No, I sound like someone who has edited literally thousands of configuration files in my career. Like the lounge singer said, "The thrill is gone, baby."
On the other hand, to use a similar school analogy, you sound like a 10th grade nerd who feels he has to memorize 30 digits of PI in order to prove how smart he is.
The point is usability, not making things as difficult as possible. Life is too short to have struggle with things that are better done by automation. Maybe you find configuring computers fun, but personally I enjoy using and programming them far more.
Device drivers is a completely different issue than ease of install. If you can't figure out how to install an OS on your PC, maybe you shouldn't be using it.
"Ease of installation" means "How easy is it to load the operating system, and get it to work with my hardware?" Obviously any idiot can insert the CD and start the installation process. In any case, your and my definition of 'install' is irrelevent if we're talking about average users installing Linux. Average users expect their computer to "just work" after installation. Heck, so do I! And "just work" means having the drivers for their hardware.
And on the subject, what is with this masochism in the Linux community? Why are some people seemingly afraid of easy and simple installation? Personally, manually editing setup files and chasing down drivers got old a long time ago. I see no reason why any user no matter how advanced wouldn't want easy installation.
Crowing about anecdotal evidence on Slashdot? I would've expected better.
Trying to convince the world that Linux is easy to install by throwing up meaningless stories like this is going to accomplish nothing. Making Linux truly easy to install with a wide variety of driver support will do a lot more.
Remember that Windows has sold literally 10s of millions of Win/95 and Win/98 upgrades. When upgrading, the O/S redetects all the hardware. Trying to argue that Windows doesn't work anything less than the vast majority of time is foolish.
Maybe I don't get it, but what's funny about this? All it proves is what we already know -- Linux is not ready for newbie users, and it's too hard to install software (no -- reading a README should not be required.)
Actually, you do. If you install some random shell, and renamed it to 'bash', there's a very good chance your system won't boot because of incompatibilities. And when it doesn't, Joe Loser is going to call Red Hat support and ask why his system is completely broken.
...and if you did it, it's very possible you would break a lot of Sun's scripts that may use options that gls didn't implement in the same way. Exactly the reason that MS needs a standard browser in the OS.
Netscape is a buggy piece of garbage... Not relevant. If you don't like Netscape, don't use Netscape. If you don't like MSIE, though, MS has insured that you don't have that option, which is the problem.
No, exactly relevent. When Netscape screws up displaying of the help pages, who do you think gets the support call?
I mean, what is the real issue here? Why, in particular, do you oppose a browser versus any other aspect of the OS such as, say, Notepad? I mean, if you don't like it, don't use it.
So, by your logic, an operating system should come with absolutely no applications? At all?
Hmmm. That means I can't have an FTP transfer program, since that would put FTP transfer program companies out of business. Therefore, I couldn't download your free browser in order to read the help files (which would presumably tell me where to download the browser).
2) Ah, but what I said was that should have been the issue. Or should MS have never added TCP/IP into the OS? There are many TCP/IP add-on companies that were severely hurt when MS did that. Those meanies!
3) You are criticising implementation issues, not the fundamental fact that the browser is a useful part of any OS (see KDE shell).
4) Insult me all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.:)
They never prevented Netscape from being installed. Use it to your heart's content.
But -- 1) Netscape is a buggy piece of garbage, and 2) there are other browsers out there. For an OS to use a browser as a fundamental tool (especially help pages), there needs to be a standard browser that the OS can depend on to have standard functionality (which, in Netscape's particular case, actually works right).
Anyone with any rationality has to conclude that MS is innocent in this case. The DOJ picked the wrong case by focusing on browsers. A browser is a natural extension of an operating system, for the simple fact it is such a useful tool. If a manufacturer wants to, say, put all his help pages into HTML, how can he do it? He can't, unless there is a standard browser built into the operating system.
Of course, MS semi-screwed up too by even getting near the fact that the browser can't be removed from the OS. Of course it can. What they should have focused on (which they did for awhile, I believe) was that it's an essential part of the OS because they want to actual use the tool in other standard parts of the OS (heaven forbid!)
Of course, Slashdot is the wrong place to bring rational arguments regarding MS.:)
Considering all the silly paranoia around here about law enforcement, I just wanted to point out that this was a case of law enforcement done right. It doesn't take many cases like this getting publicity before the sickos trolling for 13 year olds get a message that the Internet is not a safe place to prey.
...you actually have to have a science of AI. The current state of AI is that it's 99.9% philisophical, and 0.1% science. I don't want to call it a sham, because the people are honestly trying, but the past 40 years of research has been an utter failure.
That said, I think someday we'll solve the riddle of intelligence and get intelligent machines, but it ain't gonna happen in the next 50 years, and probably longer.
It's not just a question of faster computers. We need 1) provable and demonstrable theories of intelligence, and 2) hardware to implement them. Both of these are not even on the horizon, much less in our generation.
I got excited about 15 years ago when this same guy claimed to be getting ready to start trials of a personal VTOL aircraft. That company cratered (I might even have the original brochures).
Forgive me if I take a "wait and see" approach to this one.:)
Actually, you have a good point in the sense that space-based research is important. Probably the solution is to form a University-based consortium to handle space research. Perhaps tear off the research part of NASA into that, and send the other part into the military.
A university consortium wouldn't be perfect, but it would (probably) be far more efficient than the pure political entity that NASA has become. While Universities have a lot of politics, they wouldn't nearly be as subject to the pork-barrel pressures.
As far as exploration goes, that probably should be left to private enterprise. It's very difficult to make the case that the added benefits research-wise outweight the costs. The only way human exploration is going to be cost effective is if their is a profit-motive involved (probably through manufacturing; tourism probably won't pay enough).
Anyone who has used Netscape has to know that it's a complete pile of garbage, programming-wise. He has always seemed like someone who was in the right place at the right time, versus someone like Torvalds who clearly has a lot of engineering talent. Has he done anything else worthwhile?
Couple things that can be said about this nonsense.
First, you do know that the US has transferred around 5 TRILLION dollars to the poor since the sixties? Clearly dumping more money into a corrupt welfare system isn't the solution.
Second, how many children actually die in the U.S. of starvation? Oh, zero? Not to say that some people couldn't live better, but the poorest person in the U.S. lives better than the average person in a lot of other countries.
The solution to poverty is 1) a growing economy, and 2) encouragement of people to get a job and support themselves (and sometimes this has to be "tough love"). Dumping more money has not been and never will be the solution.
But I'm sure screaming "more money!" impresses your friends with your "caring"."
It would be much, much more useful to put the money in a fund to support tax breaks for putting private enterprise into space. The space station is a total joke and a waste of money. 98% of its purpose is a welfare program for engineering companies so that congressman can hold up a sign that says, "look at all the jobs I brought to the state!"
NASA should be immediately folded into the military, which is the only reason the government should be in the space business.
Slashdot Mirror
It's seems a little useless to have a free printing subsystem, but the collection of drivers is $300-$500. Granted Laserjet and Deskjet is a big part of the market, but... Does this mean that this thing needs to be drydocked until the community rewrites enough printer drivers to be truly universal? Also, is this truly that big an advance? Does it bring printing under Unix up the standards of NT/Windows (or for that matter, the Mac)?
You sound like the 3rd grader who says "Why should I learn the multiplication tables? That's too hard. I can just use a calculator!"
No, I sound like someone who has edited literally thousands of configuration files in my career. Like the lounge singer said, "The thrill is gone, baby."
On the other hand, to use a similar school analogy, you sound like a 10th grade nerd who feels he has to memorize 30 digits of PI in order to prove how smart he is.
The point is usability, not making things as difficult as possible. Life is too short to have struggle with things that are better done by automation. Maybe you find configuring computers fun, but personally I enjoy using and programming them far more.
Device drivers is a completely different issue than ease of install. If you can't figure out how to install an OS on your PC, maybe you shouldn't be using it.
"Ease of installation" means "How easy is it to load the operating system, and get it to work with my hardware?" Obviously any idiot can insert the CD and start the installation process. In any case, your and my definition of 'install' is irrelevent if we're talking about average users installing Linux. Average users expect their computer to "just work" after installation. Heck, so do I! And "just work" means having the drivers for their hardware.
And on the subject, what is with this masochism in the Linux community? Why are some people seemingly afraid of easy and simple installation? Personally, manually editing setup files and chasing down drivers got old a long time ago. I see no reason why any user no matter how advanced wouldn't want easy installation.
Crowing about anecdotal evidence on Slashdot? I would've expected better.
Trying to convince the world that Linux is easy to install by throwing up meaningless stories like this is going to accomplish nothing. Making Linux truly easy to install with a wide variety of driver support will do a lot more.
Remember that Windows has sold literally 10s of millions of Win/95 and Win/98 upgrades. When upgrading, the O/S redetects all the hardware. Trying to argue that Windows doesn't work anything less than the vast majority of time is foolish.
Maybe I don't get it, but what's funny about this? All it proves is what we already know -- Linux is not ready for newbie users, and it's too hard to install software (no -- reading a README should not be required.)
Actually, you do. If you install some random shell, and renamed it to 'bash', there's a very good chance your system won't boot because of incompatibilities. And when it doesn't, Joe Loser is going to call Red Hat support and ask why his system is completely broken.
...and if you did it, it's very possible you would break a lot of Sun's scripts that may use options that gls didn't implement in the same way. Exactly the reason that MS needs a standard browser in the OS.
Netscape is a buggy piece of garbage... Not relevant. If you don't like Netscape, don't use Netscape. If you don't like MSIE, though, MS has insured that you don't have that option, which is the problem.
No, exactly relevent. When Netscape screws up displaying of the help pages, who do you think gets the support call?
I mean, what is the real issue here? Why, in particular, do you oppose a browser versus any other aspect of the OS such as, say, Notepad? I mean, if you don't like it, don't use it.
So, by your logic, an operating system should come with absolutely no applications? At all?
Hmmm. That means I can't have an FTP transfer program, since that would put FTP transfer program companies out of business. Therefore, I couldn't download your free browser in order to read the help files (which would presumably tell me where to download the browser).
1) That's the primary focus.
2) Ah, but what I said was that should have been the issue. Or should MS have never added TCP/IP into the OS? There are many TCP/IP add-on companies that were severely hurt when MS did that. Those meanies!
3) You are criticising implementation issues, not the fundamental fact that the browser is a useful part of any OS (see KDE shell).
4) Insult me all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you are wrong. :)
And Netscape never extended HTML? Please. Or is Netscape the only company that is allowed to add HTML extensions?
They never prevented Netscape from being installed. Use it to your heart's content.
But -- 1) Netscape is a buggy piece of garbage, and 2) there are other browsers out there. For an OS to use a browser as a fundamental tool (especially help pages), there needs to be a standard browser that the OS can depend on to have standard functionality (which, in Netscape's particular case, actually works right).
Anyone with any rationality has to conclude that MS is innocent in this case. The DOJ picked the wrong case by focusing on browsers. A browser is a natural extension of an operating system, for the simple fact it is such a useful tool. If a manufacturer wants to, say, put all his help pages into HTML, how can he do it? He can't, unless there is a standard browser built into the operating system.
Of course, MS semi-screwed up too by even getting near the fact that the browser can't be removed from the OS. Of course it can. What they should have focused on (which they did for awhile, I believe) was that it's an essential part of the OS because they want to actual use the tool in other standard parts of the OS (heaven forbid!)
Of course, Slashdot is the wrong place to bring rational arguments regarding MS. :)
Considering all the silly paranoia around here about law enforcement, I just wanted to point out that this was a case of law enforcement done right. It doesn't take many cases like this getting publicity before the sickos trolling for 13 year olds get a message that the Internet is not a safe place to prey.
...you actually have to have a science of AI. The current state of AI is that it's 99.9% philisophical, and 0.1% science. I don't want to call it a sham, because the people are honestly trying, but the past 40 years of research has been an utter failure.
That said, I think someday we'll solve the riddle of intelligence and get intelligent machines, but it ain't gonna happen in the next 50 years, and probably longer.
It's not just a question of faster computers. We need 1) provable and demonstrable theories of intelligence, and 2) hardware to implement them. Both of these are not even on the horizon, much less in our generation.
Sorry to dump the cold water of reality! :)
I got excited about 15 years ago when this same guy claimed to be getting ready to start trials of a personal VTOL aircraft. That company cratered (I might even have the original brochures).
Forgive me if I take a "wait and see" approach to this one. :)
Actually, you have a good point in the sense that space-based research is important. Probably the solution is to form a University-based consortium to handle space research. Perhaps tear off the research part of NASA into that, and send the other part into the military.
A university consortium wouldn't be perfect, but it would (probably) be far more efficient than the pure political entity that NASA has become. While Universities have a lot of politics, they wouldn't nearly be as subject to the pork-barrel pressures.
As far as exploration goes, that probably should be left to private enterprise. It's very difficult to make the case that the added benefits research-wise outweight the costs. The only way human exploration is going to be cost effective is if their is a profit-motive involved (probably through manufacturing; tourism probably won't pay enough).
Anyone who has used Netscape has to know that it's a complete pile of garbage, programming-wise. He has always seemed like someone who was in the right place at the right time, versus someone like Torvalds who clearly has a lot of engineering talent. Has he done anything else worthwhile?
Couple things that can be said about this nonsense.
First, you do know that the US has transferred around 5 TRILLION dollars to the poor since the sixties? Clearly dumping more money into a corrupt welfare system isn't the solution.
Second, how many children actually die in the U.S. of starvation? Oh, zero? Not to say that some people couldn't live better, but the poorest person in the U.S. lives better than the average person in a lot of other countries.
The solution to poverty is 1) a growing economy, and 2) encouragement of people to get a job and support themselves (and sometimes this has to be "tough love"). Dumping more money has not been and never will be the solution.
But I'm sure screaming "more money!" impresses your friends with your "caring"."
It would be much, much more useful to put the money in a fund to support tax breaks for putting private enterprise into space. The space station is a total joke and a waste of money. 98% of its purpose is a welfare program for engineering companies so that congressman can hold up a sign that says, "look at all the jobs I brought to the state!"
NASA should be immediately folded into the military, which is the only reason the government should be in the space business.