Probably not (though I'm pretty sure that when I sat down to work at it I'd go 'okay, something's not right here' and do the research to identify it as such).
Now tell me why I need to be able to identify an NP-hard problem to be a 'quality programmer' (as I referred to it), as opposed to a computer scientist.
And then you have circumstances where quality programmers (myself, not to toot my own horn too much) are then screwed because your Almighty Certifications cost an arm and a leg.
Certifications aren't worth the paper they're printed on. (The same, it seems, goes for degrees.)
I feel that p3d0's post is perfectly understandable, though the author nit-picks at Cromar's post in a way some might find natty and irksome. I would recommend it to anyone thinking about reading Cromar's post.
Those "unsupported" drivers on Windows are supported by their manufacturers. Does the Great Monolith of Superiority Complexes support drivers for your nonstandard hardware?
Most people download apps like Firefox because they are good. But most people don't know where to get more simmilarly good free apps. This package management tool needs a pretty UI, a slick name and a funky logo. People need to associate the package management tool (and open source in general) as providing software worth installing and using (i.e. create a brand).
The command-line tools will be for developers and power-users. There will be a GUI catalog system--superficially similar to Synaptic--where users can search by package name, description keywords, meta tags, or programs it's similar to (i.e. "Photoshop" will return The GIMP).
Me, I love Synaptic (hate Adept, it's clunky). However, it doesn't really...well, look inviting. It's a wrapper over dpkg/apt-get, but it's a thin one. You are still exposed to a lot of stuff that intimidates and confuses an end user.
I'm envisioning something that looks nice, seamlessly fits into the Vista UI but looks good on XP. You select a category of software, or search it. The software's icon appears next to it, instead of the name of the package you only see a title--stuff like that. Make it look good and, more importantly, nonthreatening.
YES! You, sir, have hit the nail on the head. The reason I am writing WPM in a manner that deals with its own packaging format is not to be contrary, but to be more efficient with open-source software. I could just go download the MSIs from someone's site just as easily--but they aren't as good, because when they uninstall the software they leave cruft and waste all over the system. This is simply a centralized installer--that's all.
I want to ease people into using open-source software so they can more easily switch over to another OS later. You have no idea how many people I know whose brains completely turned off when they tried to install software via Adept or Synaptic the first time. WPM will not only introduce them to open-source software, but introduce them to the concepts that they could use on Linux as well.
Let's say a particular open source product relies on.NET Framework 2. Are you then going to include.NET Framework 2 in your repository? Are you going to download it from Microsoft, using Microsoft's Download Center as a kind of adjunct repository? Are you going to talk to Microsoft to see if they will cooperate in working out a solution? This seems hard.
Mono will be installed prior to the installation of the WPM client (because I'm writing the frontend in C#). If a program can't run under Mono, then I'll have to figure out how to handle it at that point.
I do think that a single starting point for finding quality open source solutions on Windows has merit. Right now there is a bewildering mass of products out there, and no easy way of sifting the gems from the dross. If nothing else, you might be able to provide a good menu of open source products that are deemed worthy of consideration.
That, more than anything, is my goal: a seamless "catalog" of F/OSS that can be used by an end user who isn't a computer wonk.
This is a good point, and one I'm thinking about. I plan to include a way for end users to comment on a specific program (and send comments to developers as well). Not sure of the specifics yet, but I'm looking at it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, hell. You hiring? :)
Probably not (though I'm pretty sure that when I sat down to work at it I'd go 'okay, something's not right here' and do the research to identify it as such).
Now tell me why I need to be able to identify an NP-hard problem to be a 'quality programmer' (as I referred to it), as opposed to a computer scientist.
And then you have circumstances where quality programmers (myself, not to toot my own horn too much) are then screwed because your Almighty Certifications cost an arm and a leg.
Certifications aren't worth the paper they're printed on. (The same, it seems, goes for degrees.)
I just died a little bit inside when I read this. It's like 'honest politician'--it doesn't work that way!
No crashes and runs perfect here, on my Core Duo with a Radeon X1300.
Enjoy the police state, it's coming to a country near you in the coming decade, if it isn't there already. The United States is already there.
Here's a hint. When you are not dragged into the street and shot for calling your government a police state, it's not a police state.
Troll.
I feel that p3d0's post is perfectly understandable, though the author nit-picks at Cromar's post in a way some might find natty and irksome. I would recommend it to anyone thinking about reading Cromar's post.
Except find is in every single Linux distribution out there, and many (if not most) search systems rely upon it.
FAIL.
Yod'm 3D
Beryl-style cube desktop on Windows. Makes using the inferior OS a little better.
Next question!
That's so hilarious that it almost made me cry.
Those "unsupported" drivers on Windows are supported by their manufacturers. Does the Great Monolith of Superiority Complexes support drivers for your nonstandard hardware?
With custom, unsupported drivers.
I searched "stuff that taco" and ended up with Slashdot (slashdot.org/tacohell) at #10.
Are you located in Maine? I'm being approached to do some LTSP work for a couple of schools. Drop me a line, I'd be interested in talking to you.
The C#.NET compiler was free when VS2003 was released.
It's the IDE that is not free.
What bizarre definition of early adapter includes those jumping on the bandwagon 15 years later?
CGA enthusiasts.
Simple ways are no fun.
You don't get to use the shotgun when doing it the "simple way."
Or the thermite.
Thanks, but it isn't "nice work" until it's done!
Most people download apps like Firefox because they are good. But most people don't know where to get more simmilarly good free apps. This package management tool needs a pretty UI, a slick name and a funky logo. People need to associate the package management tool (and open source in general) as providing software worth installing and using (i.e. create a brand).
Bingo.
The command-line tools will be for developers and power-users. There will be a GUI catalog system--superficially similar to Synaptic--where users can search by package name, description keywords, meta tags, or programs it's similar to (i.e. "Photoshop" will return The GIMP).
Me, I love Synaptic (hate Adept, it's clunky). However, it doesn't really...well, look inviting. It's a wrapper over dpkg/apt-get, but it's a thin one. You are still exposed to a lot of stuff that intimidates and confuses an end user.
I'm envisioning something that looks nice, seamlessly fits into the Vista UI but looks good on XP. You select a category of software, or search it. The software's icon appears next to it, instead of the name of the package you only see a title--stuff like that. Make it look good and, more importantly, nonthreatening.
YES! You, sir, have hit the nail on the head. The reason I am writing WPM in a manner that deals with its own packaging format is not to be contrary, but to be more efficient with open-source software. I could just go download the MSIs from someone's site just as easily--but they aren't as good, because when they uninstall the software they leave cruft and waste all over the system. This is simply a centralized installer--that's all.
I want to ease people into using open-source software so they can more easily switch over to another OS later. You have no idea how many people I know whose brains completely turned off when they tried to install software via Adept or Synaptic the first time. WPM will not only introduce them to open-source software, but introduce them to the concepts that they could use on Linux as well.
-Ed
Let's say a particular open source product relies on .NET Framework 2. Are you then going to include .NET Framework 2 in your repository? Are you going to download it from Microsoft, using Microsoft's Download Center as a kind of adjunct repository? Are you going to talk to Microsoft to see if they will cooperate in working out a solution? This seems hard.
Mono will be installed prior to the installation of the WPM client (because I'm writing the frontend in C#). If a program can't run under Mono, then I'll have to figure out how to handle it at that point.
I do think that a single starting point for finding quality open source solutions on Windows has merit. Right now there is a bewildering mass of products out there, and no easy way of sifting the gems from the dross. If nothing else, you might be able to provide a good menu of open source products that are deemed worthy of consideration.
That, more than anything, is my goal: a seamless "catalog" of F/OSS that can be used by an end user who isn't a computer wonk.
This is a good point, and one I'm thinking about. I plan to include a way for end users to comment on a specific program (and send comments to developers as well). Not sure of the specifics yet, but I'm looking at it.