Considering how much flack I've had in recent months for critical comments about KDE 4, I find this comment refreshingly funny.
If you bothered to read, you'd see that, while I am very interested in what KDE 4.1 has to offer, I don't hesitate to say what is still missing, either.
Oh, well. I must stop expecting the world to make sense; I'd be much happier that way.
- Bruce Byfield ("nanday")
While having a story linked to on Slashdot always makes my day, the summary given with the link doesn't accurately report what I said:
-- To say that I found 4.1 "wanting" is incomplete. I say that it is a major improvement over 4.0.x, but, based on the beta, isn't likely to deliver everything people want. I suggest that, while it has faults, it may be the most innovative free desktop currently.
- I say that it crashes, not as criticism (it is a beta, after all), but to suggest that casual users might not want to spend the time compiling it, and should use a Live CD to explore it instead.
- The full context in which I call KDE 4 a mistake is: "Everyone agrees now that KDE 4.0 was a mistake. However, what the mistake was -- and whose -- is a matter of opinion. KDE developers blame distributions for rushing to include a release that was never intended for everyday use, while users blame developers for changing everything." In other words, all I'm saying is that it's causing a lot of controversy -- a fact that anyone who knows how to open a search engine can easily verify.
Trying to correct an impression that gets started in comments is difficult, but I thought I'd try anyway. So, let me spell out my opinion as clearly as possibly: I'm fascinated by the KDE 4.0 series with all its innovations (in fact, I'm using it on my laptop), but I think the KDE developers seriously misjudged user reaction, and that the software itself has a ways to go.
I don't mind in the least if people disagree with me, or even condemn me; you get used to it, after a while. However, I would prefer if they disagreed with or condemned what I actually said.
Contrary to the contributor's comment, I'm saying that 4.1 *is* better than 4.0, but not as much as better as people hoped, and that, in Folder View, it introduces a new source of controversy.
I twisted the original saying to reflect my opinion.
If I understand correctly, it's not that Fransson's evidence may not be enough so much as that, the more evidence, the better. Considering the time, effort and money put into such cases, you can't blame Barracuda for taking no chances.
- nanday (Bruce Byfield)
"However, they are building on years of effort by the Kindergarten to 12th grade Linux project, and other such projects. The K12Linux Project was originally started for the Multnomah County Education Service District, using hardware donated by Intel. (Intel does some of its processor design in a big facility which is also in Portland, Oregon, USA.) "
No, they're not. They developed their solution independently of K12LTSP. If you look at the timeline, both solutions were being developed at about the same time.
I think the problem with ebooks is that they are a high-tech version of something that already exists. It seems to me that, for a high-tech version of something to succeed, it has to have a major advantage that the older version lacks. Photography, for example, produced a more accurate representation with less effort than painting.
By contrast, ebooks may have an advantage in storage space over hardcopy books, but they are harder on the eyes, have less selection, and require more technology to sustain them. Until they can overcome these things, they will probably remain either a novelty or something used mainly for non-fiction that is scanned rather than carefully read.
Even then, they won't do away with hardcopy books altogether, any more than photography eliminated painting or TV nuked radio. The two forms will co-exist, perhaps with hardcopy books finding a new, somewhat more limited niche.
I used "extreme" as a description, not a judgement.
An extreme civil libertarian position is one that believes that rights extend to those things that are hostile to those rights. For example, an extreme position on free speech is that it should extend even to comments meant to restrict the right or to deny it to others. This is further than many civil libertarians would go, so it seems right to call it "extreme."
Whether the position is right or not is another matter that I won't go into.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering how much flack I've had in recent months for critical comments about KDE 4, I find this comment refreshingly funny. If you bothered to read, you'd see that, while I am very interested in what KDE 4.1 has to offer, I don't hesitate to say what is still missing, either. Oh, well. I must stop expecting the world to make sense; I'd be much happier that way. - Bruce Byfield ("nanday")
There is such a thing as ironic expression, you know. - Bruce Byfield ("nanday")
While having a story linked to on Slashdot always makes my day, the summary given with the link doesn't accurately report what I said:
-- To say that I found 4.1 "wanting" is incomplete. I say that it is a major improvement over 4.0.x, but, based on the beta, isn't likely to deliver everything people want. I suggest that, while it has faults, it may be the most innovative free desktop currently.
- I say that it crashes, not as criticism (it is a beta, after all), but to suggest that casual users might not want to spend the time compiling it, and should use a Live CD to explore it instead.
- The full context in which I call KDE 4 a mistake is: "Everyone agrees now that KDE 4.0 was a mistake. However, what the mistake was -- and whose -- is a matter of opinion. KDE developers blame distributions for rushing to include a release that was never intended for everyday use, while users blame developers for changing everything." In other words, all I'm saying is that it's causing a lot of controversy -- a fact that anyone who knows how to open a search engine can easily verify.
Trying to correct an impression that gets started in comments is difficult, but I thought I'd try anyway. So, let me spell out my opinion as clearly as possibly: I'm fascinated by the KDE 4.0 series with all its innovations (in fact, I'm using it on my laptop), but I think the KDE developers seriously misjudged user reaction, and that the software itself has a ways to go.
I don't mind in the least if people disagree with me, or even condemn me; you get used to it, after a while. However, I would prefer if they disagreed with or condemned what I actually said.
Contrary to the contributor's comment, I'm saying that 4.1 *is* better than 4.0, but not as much as better as people hoped, and that, in Folder View, it introduces a new source of controversy.
I twisted the original saying to reflect my opinion.
-Bruce Byfield ("nanday")
If I understand correctly, it's not that Fransson's evidence may not be enough so much as that, the more evidence, the better. Considering the time, effort and money put into such cases, you can't blame Barracuda for taking no chances. - nanday (Bruce Byfield)
"However, they are building on years of effort by the Kindergarten to 12th grade Linux project, and other such projects. The K12Linux Project was originally started for the Multnomah County Education Service District, using hardware donated by Intel. (Intel does some of its processor design in a big facility which is also in Portland, Oregon, USA.) "
No, they're not. They developed their solution independently of K12LTSP. If you look at the timeline, both solutions were being developed at about the same time.
- Bruce Byfield (nanday)
If you are willing to do some translation, could you contact me at editors@ostg.com?
Thanks,
nanday
I think the problem with ebooks is that they are a high-tech version of something that already exists. It seems to me that, for a high-tech version of something to succeed, it has to have a major advantage that the older version lacks. Photography, for example, produced a more accurate representation with less effort than painting.
By contrast, ebooks may have an advantage in storage space over hardcopy books, but they are harder on the eyes, have less selection, and require more technology to sustain them. Until they can overcome these things, they will probably remain either a novelty or something used mainly for non-fiction that is scanned rather than carefully read.
Even then, they won't do away with hardcopy books altogether, any more than photography eliminated painting or TV nuked radio. The two forms will co-exist, perhaps with hardcopy books finding a new, somewhat more limited niche.
I used "extreme" as a description, not a judgement.
An extreme civil libertarian position is one that believes that rights extend to those things that are hostile to those rights. For example, an extreme position on free speech is that it should extend even to comments meant to restrict the right or to deny it to others. This is further than many civil libertarians would go, so it seems right to call it "extreme."
Whether the position is right or not is another matter that I won't go into.