The Verve, "A Storm in Heaven" My Bloody Valentine, "Loveless" Slowdive, "Just for a Day" & "Souvlaki" Yo La Tengo's "Painful"
What's on now? Public Enemy's latest, "There's a Poison Goin' On..."
Like *aural* novacaine....keeps the rest of my brain swimming in a sea of noise while the grey matter concentrates on the job at hand: coding 'til my fingers bleed (though my ears may, too).
Wow, am I glad that Tim took the opportunity of a keynote address to express this pov, and with such conviction.
To focus on Linux vs. Windows is like driving with both eyes fixed on the rear-view mirror. Or like my old track coach said "You'll always run slower if you look behind you to see where the competition is."
The concept and reality of "Internet Speed" will eventually determine the success or failure of products, companies, and their respective paradigms.
While Microsoft is very powerful and very rich, they're also very big. And their culture of software intellectual property and a tremendous dependence on the desktop computing metaphor could very well be their downfall.
For Linux-mavens (or, more specifically, anti-Microsoft-mavens) who only think victory is measured by how many choose Linux over Windows, remember that the computer world is bigger than your desktop.
But anything I write here is soooo much better said by Tim!
Re-read the article. Print it. Post it.
Our revolution isn't about taking power away from the establishment and giving it to us, it's about not having a center of power at all.
Having recently (within the past two months) installed Windows 95, Windows NT 4, Windows 2000 Professional RC1, and RH Linux 6.0 (with Win95, NT, and Linux on a triple-boot machine), I read with interest NP's perspective on the relative installations.
Frankly, I was left a bit cold from the article. It didn't really say much of anything new or insightful other than one very critical point: Microsoft makes some huge assumptions about where one begins when using their OS (?!) products.
Example 1: On my for-work laptop (A relatively high-end Dell Latitude), I had a perfectly acceptable-for-NT installation. I thought that I just might throw risk to the wind and install the latest RC for Windows 2000. The Win2K setup program complained about my existing filesystem configuration and refused to continue. After altering the filesystem settings, the setup program appeared to run fine, only to completely ruin my previous installation of applications and other settings. To its credit, however, the Win2K setup program detected my installed hardware effortlessly. And yeah, it took nearly 3 hours to "finish." (I ended up having to wipe the disk clean and start from scratch. Setup still took over 2 hours -- and I spent 3 more reinstalling my apps.)
Example 2: On my Dell Workstation 610 I made a valiant attempt at installing WinNT4, Win95, and RH Linux 6.0 in one day. Based on what I had read from other mentally unstable folks attempting such a configuration, it is typically best to start with the neighborhood bully, WinNT, as your first OS (due to its all-powerful and rude boot loader). Before beginning I used PartitionMagic to setup my partitions (here's an area where the vast majority of OS installers will stumble -- and that includes novice hackers). Lucky for me, I could boot the NT installer from CD and away I went. Since NT4 is big and dumb, I had to jump thru hoops for it to recognize the fact that I had two SCSI controllers on my system (the CDROM drive on one, the HDs on the other). Once I got past that circus, I watched as NT4 basically detected just about nothing else on my sytem. Lucky I had built driver images for my pieces from Dell's support site.
Example 3:From NT I proceeded to install Win95 on the existing C: FAT16 partition. (All that NT had placed there was what it needed for booting.) Here again, many reboots and essentially non-existent device detection. And I had to really dig around for Win95 versions of drivers for my preinstalled devices. An elegant kludge, my ass.
Example 4:I began my Linux installation from the CD -- again grateful for bootable CDs. Like the new kid in school who knows he has to get along with everyone, the RH installer allowed me to proceed rapidly through the installation, almost never frightening me with refusals to recognize different devices nor other OS filesystems (though both my Win installs used the congenial FAT 16). Configuring the X-Server was the only place where the installer really faltered; but even with that the whole installation took me about 30 minutes. (I bypassed LILO, instead looking to use the bully NT OS Loader.)
In all of the press and conversations I've read/heard discussing the installations of Linux vs. *using* Windows, the basic thing that seems to be missing is that very problem with Microsoft's assumption: that we only use their products and that we should be grateful for doing so. When folks complain about having to edit files to get their systems to work properly, so many seem to forget that it was only four years ago when the vast majority of PCs still ran Win 3.1 -- if that. Hello?! Win.ini? System.ini?
I'm still not sure where I stand on the Linux-for-the-masses issue, but I'm sure that I don't want people to assume that they have to settle for an inferior product when, with a bit of tweaking and polish, a better solution (Linux, FreeBSD, etc.) is readily available. That said, I'm encouraged by where Caldera is taking the install process; I only wish that the 'Advanced' user bypass option will always remain.
I was in a similar situation not long ago, though my monitor is 21" and my computer a full tower.
More folks should consider ergonomics -- especially furniture manufacturers. Most of the truly ergonomic furniture is extremely expensive, but if you're mindful of the seat-desk-keyboard-monitor relationship, then even lowly stuff can be made to work.
Here's what I bought:
OfficeMax#:01215553 Product Name:Cherry Corner Desk Dimensions:29-5/8"h x 47-3/16"d x 47-3/16"w
I also purchased a 36" Desk from this collection -- the Bush OfficePro Cherry Collection -- to complement the right side of the corner desk; that way I can place my printer and some other devices nearby but away from the general work area on the corner desk.
OfficeMax#:01215688 Product Name:Cherry 36" Desk Dimensions:29-5/8"h x 26-13/16"d x 35-3/8"w
The corner desk costs US $179; the 36" desk costs $139. I also purchased on clearance a retractable keyboard arm that normally sells for about $225 for about$100 but still haven't installed it; the combination of a good chair and the corner desk orientation gives me loads of depth so that I can rest my arms on the desktop. (The high-quality office chair w ason sale for $99 from $170).
Though we're fortunate to have an IKEA nearby, they didn't have a desk with the depth that I required. Also, the Bush furniture has been of decent quality -- and it's far cheaper.
Good luck.
Go to OfficeMax and follow the links to "Desks - Modular Office Systems" for more info.
It's so easy to bash companies with a profit motive.
But bashing Sun or bashing StarOffice or whatever anti-Microsoft solution (though bashing Microsoft is fine...) misses the point, IMHO.
At best, the referenced piece on ZDNet is ignorant. At worst, it'll be influential FUD-fodder.
To me, Linux is an important product (and way of building and distributing a product) that serves an important goal: widening the horizons of corporate IT types and regular computer users the world over to an \alternative\ way of thinking about software and computing in general.
StarOffice, in it's own weird way, is similar.
The Internet is a wonderful thing; the WWW could very well be *the* killer app of all time. Both of these things have proven the case, albeit in their infancy (in the case of the WWW), of the beauty and power of network computing. Think about it. We can all get to/. as long as we have a networked computing device with access to a browser. Most of us can do all of our non-device-dependent software development given appropriate access to remote computing resources. The coming wave of ASPs will be an interesting test of the viability of WWW-hosted applications.
I, for one, do not consider being responsible for sysadmin duties (backup included) to be gratifying. As long as I have reasonable access to my resources, I'm happy. X-Windows is a nifty 'portal', after all, right?!
So what does this all have to do with StarOffice and Sun? Even if it's not exactly what Sun has in mind, their endorsement of StarOffice -- and the relative ease and low cost of folks acquiring it for evaluation (if not deployment) -- will help open more minds to the fact that they can, in fact, exist without a traditional Microsoft/PC/desktop orientation. How's that? It's all about making them aware of \alternatives\.
Of course Sun wants to sell more hardware. Actually, I think their primarily interested in selling *something* that they believe in that helps them make money. I'm hopeful that they've learned that focusing on hurting MS doesn't necessarily help them. If they can enlighten the computing world to the benefits of network computing -- and we all can continue enlightening the world about \open source\ software, then the good guys can win without looking like hypocrites.
For now, let's applaud Sun for having a strategy to help users. StarOffice is a means, not an end. My preference is to always use GPL-ed stuff, but I'm even more passionate about having choice.
It's so easy to bash companies with a profit motive. But bashing Sun or bashing StarOffice or whatever anti-Microsoft solution (though bashing Microsoft is fine...) misses the point, IMHO. At best, the referenced piece on ZDNet is ignorant. At worst, it'll be influential FUD-fodder. To me, Linux is an important product (and way of building and distributing a product) that serves an important goal: widening the horizons of corporate IT types and regular computer users the world over to an \alternative\ way of thinking about software and computing in general. StarOffice, in it's own weird way, is similar. The Internet is a wonderful thing; the WWW could very well be *the* killer app of all time. Both of these things have proven the case, albeit in their infancy (in the case of the WWW), of the beauty and power of network computing. Think about it. We can all get to/. as long as we have a networked computing device with access to a browser. Most of us can do all of our non-device-dependent software development given appropriate access to remote computing resources. The coming wave of ASPs will be an interesting test of the viability of WWW-hosted applications. I, for one, do not consider being responsible for sysadmin duties (backup included) to be gratifying. As long as I have reasonable access to my resources, I'm happy. X-Windows is a nifty 'portal', after all, right?! So what does this all have to do with StarOffice and Sun? Even if it's not exactly what Sun has in mind, their endorsement of StarOffice -- and the relative ease and low cost of folks acquiring it for evaluation (if not deployment) -- will help open more minds to the fact that they can, in fact, exist without a traditional Microsoft/PC/desktop orientation. How's that? It's all about making them aware of \alternatives\. Of course Sun wants to sell more hardware. Actually, I think their primarily interested in selling *something* that they believe in that helps them make money. I'm hopeful that they've learned that focusing on hurting MS doesn't necessarily help them. If they can enlighten the computing world to the benefits of network computing -- and we all can continue enlightening the world about \open source\ software, then the good guys can win without looking like hypocrites. For now, let's applaud Sun for having a strategy to help users. StarOffice is a means, not an end. My preference is to always use GPL-ed stuff, but I'm even more passionate about having choice. Let the games continue!
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, this one's so easy!
The Verve, "A Storm in Heaven"
My Bloody Valentine, "Loveless"
Slowdive, "Just for a Day" & "Souvlaki"
Yo La Tengo's "Painful"
What's on now? Public Enemy's latest, "There's a Poison Goin' On..."
Like *aural* novacaine....keeps the rest of my brain swimming in a sea of noise while the grey matter concentrates on the job at hand: coding 'til my fingers bleed (though my ears may, too).
Wow, am I glad that Tim took the opportunity of a keynote address to express this pov, and with such conviction.
To focus on Linux vs. Windows is like driving with both eyes fixed on the rear-view mirror. Or like my old track coach said "You'll always run slower if you look behind you to see where the competition is."
The concept and reality of "Internet Speed" will eventually determine the success or failure of products, companies, and their respective paradigms.
While Microsoft is very powerful and very rich, they're also very big. And their culture of software intellectual property and a tremendous dependence on the desktop computing metaphor could very well be their downfall.
For Linux-mavens (or, more specifically, anti-Microsoft-mavens) who only think victory is measured by how many choose Linux over Windows, remember that the computer world is bigger than your desktop.
But anything I write here is soooo much better said by Tim!
Re-read the article. Print it. Post it.
Our revolution isn't about taking power away from the establishment and giving it to us, it's about not having a center of power at all.
Frankly, I was left a bit cold from the article. It didn't really say much of anything new or insightful other than one very critical point: Microsoft makes some huge assumptions about where one begins when using their OS (?!) products.
In all of the press and conversations I've read/heard discussing the installations of Linux vs. *using* Windows, the basic thing that seems to be missing is that very problem with Microsoft's assumption: that we only use their products and that we should be grateful for doing so. When folks complain about having to edit files to get their systems to work properly, so many seem to forget that it was only four years ago when the vast majority of PCs still ran Win 3.1 -- if that. Hello?! Win.ini? System.ini?
I'm still not sure where I stand on the Linux-for-the-masses issue, but I'm sure that I don't want people to assume that they have to settle for an inferior product when, with a bit of tweaking and polish, a better solution (Linux, FreeBSD, etc.) is readily available. That said, I'm encouraged by where Caldera is taking the install process; I only wish that the 'Advanced' user bypass option will always remain.
I was in a similar situation not long ago, though my monitor is 21" and my computer a full tower.
More folks should consider ergonomics -- especially furniture manufacturers. Most of the truly ergonomic furniture is extremely expensive, but if you're mindful of the seat-desk-keyboard-monitor relationship, then even lowly stuff can be made to work.
Here's what I bought:
OfficeMax#:01215553
Product Name:Cherry Corner Desk
Dimensions:29-5/8"h x 47-3/16"d x 47-3/16"w
I also purchased a 36" Desk from this collection -- the Bush OfficePro Cherry Collection -- to complement the right side of the corner desk; that way I can place my printer and some other devices nearby but away from the general work area on the corner desk.
OfficeMax#:01215688
Product Name:Cherry 36" Desk
Dimensions:29-5/8"h x 26-13/16"d x 35-3/8"w
The corner desk costs US $179; the 36" desk costs $139. I also purchased on clearance a retractable keyboard arm that normally sells for about $225 for about$100 but still haven't installed it; the combination of a good chair and the corner desk orientation gives me loads of depth so that I can rest my arms on the desktop. (The high-quality office chair w ason sale for $99 from $170).
Though we're fortunate to have an IKEA nearby, they didn't have a desk with the depth that I required. Also, the Bush furniture has been of decent quality -- and it's far cheaper.
Good luck.
Go to OfficeMax and follow the links to "Desks - Modular Office Systems" for more info.
It's so easy to bash companies with a profit motive.
/. as long as we have a networked computing device with access to a browser. Most of us can do all of our non-device-dependent software development given appropriate access to remote computing resources. The coming wave of ASPs will be an interesting test of the viability of WWW-hosted applications.
But bashing Sun or bashing StarOffice or whatever anti-Microsoft solution (though bashing Microsoft is fine...) misses the point, IMHO.
At best, the referenced piece on ZDNet is ignorant. At worst, it'll be influential FUD-fodder.
To me, Linux is an important product (and way of building and distributing a product) that serves an important goal: widening the horizons of corporate IT types and regular computer users the world over to an \alternative\ way of thinking about software and computing in general.
StarOffice, in it's own weird way, is similar.
The Internet is a wonderful thing; the WWW could very well be *the* killer app of all time. Both of these things have proven the case, albeit in their infancy (in the case of the WWW), of the beauty and power of network computing. Think about it. We can all get to
I, for one, do not consider being responsible for sysadmin duties (backup included) to be gratifying. As long as I have reasonable access to my resources, I'm happy. X-Windows is a nifty 'portal', after all, right?!
So what does this all have to do with StarOffice and Sun? Even if it's not exactly what Sun has in mind, their endorsement of StarOffice -- and the relative ease and low cost of folks acquiring it for evaluation (if not deployment) -- will help open more minds to the fact that they can, in fact, exist without a traditional Microsoft/PC/desktop orientation. How's that? It's all about making them aware of \alternatives\.
Of course Sun wants to sell more hardware. Actually, I think their primarily interested in selling *something* that they believe in that helps them make money. I'm hopeful that they've learned that focusing on hurting MS doesn't necessarily help them. If they can enlighten the computing world to the benefits of network computing -- and we all can continue enlightening the world about \open source\ software, then the good guys can win without looking like hypocrites.
For now, let's applaud Sun for having a strategy to help users. StarOffice is a means, not an end. My preference is to always use GPL-ed stuff, but I'm even more passionate about having choice.
Let the games continue!
It's so easy to bash companies with a profit motive. But bashing Sun or bashing StarOffice or whatever anti-Microsoft solution (though bashing Microsoft is fine...) misses the point, IMHO. At best, the referenced piece on ZDNet is ignorant. At worst, it'll be influential FUD-fodder. To me, Linux is an important product (and way of building and distributing a product) that serves an important goal: widening the horizons of corporate IT types and regular computer users the world over to an \alternative\ way of thinking about software and computing in general. StarOffice, in it's own weird way, is similar. The Internet is a wonderful thing; the WWW could very well be *the* killer app of all time. Both of these things have proven the case, albeit in their infancy (in the case of the WWW), of the beauty and power of network computing. Think about it. We can all get to /. as long as we have a networked computing device with access to a browser. Most of us can do all of our non-device-dependent software development given appropriate access to remote computing resources. The coming wave of ASPs will be an interesting test of the viability of WWW-hosted applications. I, for one, do not consider being responsible for sysadmin duties (backup included) to be gratifying. As long as I have reasonable access to my resources, I'm happy. X-Windows is a nifty 'portal', after all, right?! So what does this all have to do with StarOffice and Sun? Even if it's not exactly what Sun has in mind, their endorsement of StarOffice -- and the relative ease and low cost of folks acquiring it for evaluation (if not deployment) -- will help open more minds to the fact that they can, in fact, exist without a traditional Microsoft/PC/desktop orientation. How's that? It's all about making them aware of \alternatives\. Of course Sun wants to sell more hardware. Actually, I think their primarily interested in selling *something* that they believe in that helps them make money. I'm hopeful that they've learned that focusing on hurting MS doesn't necessarily help them. If they can enlighten the computing world to the benefits of network computing -- and we all can continue enlightening the world about \open source\ software, then the good guys can win without looking like hypocrites. For now, let's applaud Sun for having a strategy to help users. StarOffice is a means, not an end. My preference is to always use GPL-ed stuff, but I'm even more passionate about having choice. Let the games continue!