Personally I think Ubuntu is great, probably one of the better distros of Linux that I've seen to date. The only problem I've run across is that it doesn't want to play nice with my Inspiron 9300, but that's not specific to Ubuntu; I have the same issue with SUSE as well, so mod me down if you think it's a dig (which it's not).
(As an aside, Ubuntu "Live" was great for testing out that OS X x86 release that was going around, so in that regards, kudos to Ubuntu for being straight-forward to provide the means to get OSx86 up and running.)
I don't care if these vehicles can drive by themselves 2 miles or 20, just make sure they come with a red LED on the front that alternates back and forth and make it say "right away Michael" everytime I get in the car.
This topic has been beaten to death a thousand and one times before but the reality still holds true: as long as a company holds the source of their software to their chest, you simply have to rely on them to provide the security for said software. By doing so you create the equivalent of a single point of failure that has to be addressed solely by the holding company, and as a result, you are subject to the "hurry up and wait" syndrome that accompanies it. That's when it comes back to "suck it up or don't use it," which carries all the arguments of "we don't have a choice" or "switching isn't an alternative for us."
"...and will force NASA to change just about everything they do."
Therein lies part of the problem of resistance. Think of the old dogs working at NASA who are very good at what they do but possess specialized skills and knowledge that may not lend themselves as well to building a space elevator as they do to sending objects into orbit using current modes of transportation. Continuing education and cross-training is one thing; restructing job duties and/or phasing out unnecessary positions (such as those presently required for current trasport) at a governmental agency level is simply a can of worms waiting to be opened.
A worthwhile endeavor indeed, but the approach will have to be sent through 72 review committees and beaten to death where people eventually forget why they're meeting in the first place (aka death by committee) long before a space elevator ever develops beyond the gleam in a few visionaries' eyes.
Is this technology really just now in its infancy?
on
The New Face Lift
·
· Score: -1, Redundant
Surely this technology has been around a lot longer....I could have sworn I saw a movie with that Saturday Night Fever guy who had his face ripped off and stuck on Nicholas Cage's body.
I would agree with more frequent release cycles up to a point; they would have to ensure, however, that they don't begin to mimic M$ by releasing new builds simply for the sake of releasing them just to keep the name fresh in people's minds. Release schedules should only be to either implement beneficial features or to resolve any outstanding issues that benefit the user base as a whole.
The only real problem with open source that's actually preventing it from being competitive in the commercial (and perhaps retail) marketplace is the same issue that helps keep the OSS community "real." Essentially geeks don't want to make (for example) Linux apps as straight-forward to install as windows apps. It's the fact that you have to actually KNOW something about your operating system environment, the fact you have to know a fair amount about using a compiler, about linking, so on and so forth that makes Linux appealing, because to dumb it down to the point of double-clicking on an icon (of which even OS X is guilty of) is what turns true Linux power users off the most.
That said, I realize there are distros out there which try to accomplish just this feat of making the use of their bolt-on utilities more "luser-friendly", but that also contributes to the disparity between distros and inadvertently creates a divide between the "cares" and the "care-nots" regarding (again in this example) Linux's future on grandma's desktop.
I'd obviously have to disagree with the OP's reference to lack of professionalism, there's clearly some very well thought out distros of Linux, software suites and utilities that took more than one person to work on, that were extended with some expertise and a different perspective, compiler IDEs that rival those of anything M$ could overpay their commuter slaves to write, and simply innovative designs that Billy and Ballmer could take notes from. An honest look through sourceforge could put that argument to rest fairly quickly.
This just reeks of a caffeine-induced Ballmer idea to ensure that Microsoft doesn't have to ship Vista with AOL icons on the desktop without them getting a piece of the action. Microsoft Innovation (tm) at its finest!
Slashdot Mirror
(As an aside, Ubuntu "Live" was great for testing out that OS X x86 release that was going around, so in that regards, kudos to Ubuntu for being straight-forward to provide the means to get OSx86 up and running.)
I don't care if these vehicles can drive by themselves 2 miles or 20, just make sure they come with a red LED on the front that alternates back and forth and make it say "right away Michael" everytime I get in the car.
This topic has been beaten to death a thousand and one times before but the reality still holds true: as long as a company holds the source of their software to their chest, you simply have to rely on them to provide the security for said software. By doing so you create the equivalent of a single point of failure that has to be addressed solely by the holding company, and as a result, you are subject to the "hurry up and wait" syndrome that accompanies it. That's when it comes back to "suck it up or don't use it," which carries all the arguments of "we don't have a choice" or "switching isn't an alternative for us."
Therein lies part of the problem of resistance. Think of the old dogs working at NASA who are very good at what they do but possess specialized skills and knowledge that may not lend themselves as well to building a space elevator as they do to sending objects into orbit using current modes of transportation. Continuing education and cross-training is one thing; restructing job duties and/or phasing out unnecessary positions (such as those presently required for current trasport) at a governmental agency level is simply a can of worms waiting to be opened.
A worthwhile endeavor indeed, but the approach will have to be sent through 72 review committees and beaten to death where people eventually forget why they're meeting in the first place (aka death by committee) long before a space elevator ever develops beyond the gleam in a few visionaries' eyes.
Surely this technology has been around a lot longer....I could have sworn I saw a movie with that Saturday Night Fever guy who had his face ripped off and stuck on Nicholas Cage's body.
I would agree with more frequent release cycles up to a point; they would have to ensure, however, that they don't begin to mimic M$ by releasing new builds simply for the sake of releasing them just to keep the name fresh in people's minds. Release schedules should only be to either implement beneficial features or to resolve any outstanding issues that benefit the user base as a whole.
I still think the cat-fueled method would provide a greater return in the long run....
That said, I realize there are distros out there which try to accomplish just this feat of making the use of their bolt-on utilities more "luser-friendly", but that also contributes to the disparity between distros and inadvertently creates a divide between the "cares" and the "care-nots" regarding (again in this example) Linux's future on grandma's desktop.
I'd obviously have to disagree with the OP's reference to lack of professionalism, there's clearly some very well thought out distros of Linux, software suites and utilities that took more than one person to work on, that were extended with some expertise and a different perspective, compiler IDEs that rival those of anything M$ could overpay their commuter slaves to write, and simply innovative designs that Billy and Ballmer could take notes from. An honest look through sourceforge could put that argument to rest fairly quickly.
This just reeks of a caffeine-induced Ballmer idea to ensure that Microsoft doesn't have to ship Vista with AOL icons on the desktop without them getting a piece of the action. Microsoft Innovation (tm) at its finest!