SAS Institute here in Cary, NC gets slammed all the time for trying to build things and develop roads and infrastructure to support their campus. People claim they are interfering and trying to control the way Cary is developed to further their own ends. You're damned if you do...
Awww, I'm sorry -- where in the Constitution (or in any other document) does it guarantee your right to "move up in society"? Paying someone two dollars a week and charging them a dollar fifty for room and board is good money in some parts of the world. Just because that seems small to you doesn't mean it isn't. That means they have food and a roof, something a lot of people in the world don't have. Get a real perspective (i.e., go somewhere besides America and get an appreciation for the amazing benefits you have living here).
This is one of the essential fallacies of people who don't know, understand, or use NT. Just because NT is easier to get running doesn't means it is easier to keep running. Anyone who can only keep an NT box running for a week should start looking for another job, because they aren't going to last long at the one they have.
I hate people talking about something they know nothing about. NT admins face the same issues and concerns as UNIX admins -- security, stability, ease of use, user happiness. We deal with the same crap as other admins. We have to spend the time reading the docs too. And you know what? My skill set has survived five versions of Windows, innumerable versions of the Linux kernel, and two versions of Netware.
Now, I'll be the first to admit that NT is lagging in power and configurability, but it isn't by any massive margin. I prefer Linux for both practical and philosophical reasons, but NT is a useable, viable OS that runs quite a few small to medium businesses. Period. The people who made that decision aren't stupid (I'm one of em), they are practical. NT is fast to set up, and in a changing, developing environment, that can be key. For something that has to be done NOW by someone who is learning on the fly (how many times have we all done that?), NT is (usually) forgiving of mistakes.
Bottom line: it always comes down to the people. If you have an idiot running an NT system, it ain't going to work for long. If you have an idiot running a UNIX system, it'll run forever and be used as a DDOS host. An idiot is still an idiot, and the system is going to suck, either way.
Aetius
Re:It's like IE 5.0, but 1 louder
on
Netscape 6
·
· Score: 1
If you want to see a 2.0 version, load a stock install of NT 4.0 -- 2.0something was bundled with it (eeeewwwww!). 3.x was the HTML3 compatible browser and was fairly rapidly eclipsed by 4. I've worked with em all.
Assuming the computers are grounded, there's not much danger of injury -- the ethernet card would short out, destroying the computer and breaking or fusing the circuit. You'd be in more danger of grounding the whole building, and blowing out all of your circuit breakers (probably fuses in a building that old).
One more point -- they had it for a month or two before anyone noticed? Bravo, bravo. Sigh
All you really need is somewhere to land -- you could park this by rolling it into a space just like a car. In fact, from the look of it, you probably could store two or three of them in a parking space, if you could fold up the rotors like Navy helicopters. Roofs would be ideal for heavily populated areas -- new parking structures on top of buildings? Eeesh.
You're missing the point. What these guys are saying is that here is an opportunity to tinker with satellites, even junky annoying ones. Sure, their orbits will eventually decay and they will be destroyed. No one wants to replace them. But why can't we keep them up until the end of their useful life? I mean, when is anyone going to have a chance just to work with a satellite? How much would it take just to keep the ground stations running on a shoestring?
This is the argument I see these guys making: Lets try doing something with these satellites instead of just destroying them. Maybe we can't do anything with them, maybe we can. But don't just wipe em out without looking into it. We may not have another chance like this for a while. It is at least worth looking into.
Disclaimer: I am a Linux user. I like Linux. I have issues with Linux. Deal with it. Here goes.
Maybe this isn't obvious to me, but why is EaseOfUse != Powerful when it comes to software interfaces? I just don't see the problem here, except that people are too lazy or too time-pressured to develop a decent interface.
For my (only half-decent) example I'm going to use the software that was written for my scanner, a Umax 610P. I love my scanner interface. (Kudos to whoever wrote it if you are reading this.) The interface has two modes, easy and expert. This is a compromise, but one that works well in this case. The easy mode is basically two buttons, Preview and Scan, with a simple, easy interface that allows you to crop what is actually scanned. The Expert Mode is a well-laid out, very simple interface that presents all of the options that the scanner can handle. It is clear, simple, and obvious, even to people who don't know anything about imaging. The only problem is that this software isn't Open Source (AFAIK), which is the only thing lacking in an otherwise excellent piece of software.
The reason I like this software so much is that it takes care of two of the three levels of user, one of which I happen to belong to. The three levels are:
Novice Power-User Professional/Developer
In this case, I fall into the Power-User category, someone who needs to use most of the features of the scanner but who doesn't have the time to program his own interface, etc. Now the deal with this is that EVERYONE , at one time or another, falls into all three categories. NO ONE can be a professional and developer on every piece of software they use. Therefore, one has to design most software with at least the Power-User in mind.
And that is the crux of the matter. I think that a lot of programmers hold the view that if someone is too lazy, doesn't have time, has no desire, or is too dumb to understand a complicated interface shouldn't be using their product in the first place. Now, before I get flamed, there is a place for this sentiment, and it is a valid view. But don't let it blind you to the benefits of making an easy-to-learn, powerful interface that more people can grasp. After all, we're trying to benefit everyone, that is the thrust behind Open Source. And if you develop for the Power-User, i.e. other developers who must use the product but don't have time to deal with learning the ins and outs of the product, they will bless you, and Linux can continue in its inexorable march to world domination
Linux is not widely accepted on the desktop because it is a PAIN IN THE ASS to learn. The help files suck, particularly for people who are just learning the interface. Microsoft's help files suck for the opposite reason -- they don't assist the knowledgeable user with difficult tasks. The Linux and Microsoft command lines makes perfect sense -- if you know the commands, which have to be memorized. Editing a text file is easy -- if you know the format and how to lay out the file. If you don't, you have to figure it out from the pathetic documentation. This is possible for a smart person (my first experience with Linux was setting up the XF86Config file, ooh fun), but is time-intensive and frustrating. Editing the Registry is just hopeless, due entirely to the crappy interface (can you say...weak?). The GNOME desktop interface is counter-intuitive to a Microsoft-trained user (which is most people), but on top of that it does things that make no logical sense. I have yet to figure out the Alt-Tab sequence of window-switching, as it appears to be random (Just switch 1-2-3-4 guys!). It probably makes sense from the viewpoint of the code, but it doesn't make sense to my eyes and hands, which is what matters when I'm using it.
You know, it seems to me that the rules of designing a good interface are simple:
1)Don't mess with what the user is doing. Microsoft is particularly bad about this (ever had your start bar disappear when another app refreshes the desktop?).
2)Keep things consistent and logical, at least within your program. If your program interfaces with the desktop (Explorer, KDE, GNOME) then stick to the conventions. You guys who write the conventions, make them make sense!
3)Don't hide functionality from your user. Everything should be simply laid out, in a logical format, accessible by both mouse and keyboard. Everything configurable in your software should be here, not in some random registry setting or text file -- that kind of editing should be reserved for software modification or emergencies.
4)Don't present everything to your user at once all smashed together (Exchange 5.5 config menus, anyone?). Logical design, dammit! You're a programmer -- if you don't understand logic, just give it up now. It isn't easy, I know, and programmers are naturally lazy -- so design the interface to be as fast and as easy as possible, which means paying attention to learnability, layout, and keyboard access.
5)Talk to your users -- all of them, from fellow developers to the Joe off the street. They may have crackpot ideas, they may have good ideas, but they are the reason you are there in the first place. Get out there and talk to them. One user's comments are waaaaaayyyy better than none, and the more you get, the better off you are.
Lack of useability is YOUR fault, not the user. Don't go down the Microsoft path of denying users power to make things easier. Fast, easy, and powerful IS possible in my opinion, you just have to work at it. Learn! And remember, you may be using someone else's software tomorrow, and you'll be wishing that they had spent the time to give you a good experience...
Here's a thought. Assume that all this information is being collected. Massive, massive amounts of data, a huge mountain of data that even the fastest machine and the most sophisticated software takes time to go through. It's fairly accurate, most of the time, and people come to rely on it for various things just as they came to rely on computers today.
What about those who have the intelligence and skill to defeat these monitoring systems? The Stainless Steel Rat, or rather the Silicon Rat, of the future? This would be a person who figures out a way into the system that isn't checked or monitored -- and with a system that large, you know the chinks are going to be everywhere. Once in the system, they learn how defeat the various monitors -- feeding in false video signals, altering heat-sensor records, and intercepting the audio stream and co-opting it for their own use. These people will be essentially invisible, able to take on any identity of any person on a moments notice, to assume the thermal pattern of a 12-year-old child (at least in the eyes of the computer), and mask their activity in either a quiet ripple of data modification or a burgeoning wake of destruction.
I like a comment from the book "Hammer's Slammers" by David Drake. Paraphrasing, "Seeing the satellite image of something happening is one thing -- interpreting it as hostile activity is something else." People are endlessly adaptable, much more so than corporations or governments. These cameras that have been installed are effective now (read the Brin chapter)-- but what happens when the criminals figure out how to beat them? Having cameras in a bank doesn't stop people from robbing it -- they just adopt defenses like masks. Anyone who thinks that this spread of technology won't foster an increasingly technological brand of criminal is deluding him/herself.
What does this mean? It means the only people that these cameras are going to be spying on is normal, law-abiding people, since most criminals will figure out ways around them. Ask any real-world physical security expert. You cannot design a system that can't be defeated -- and the larger the system, the easier it is to defeat it. The root and main component of security will always be alert people, not computers. THIS MEANS YOU! Protect your data!
So we destroy the delicate environment of the desert, eliminate a few more species (especially those pesky sidewinders), just in the name of somewhere to live? How can you be so insensitive?
Everywhere you live is a trade-off. Every choice you make environmentally is a compromise. We need to learn how to handle where we live before we go and move into a new area. The desert is just as beautiful and valuable as everywhere else in the world, with the single exception of growing food (which is changing). Think about this idea a little further.
I think a friend of mine hit the nail right on the head. He said,
"If I'm going to be staring at this EverQuest character for six to eight hours a day for months at a time, I want this character to be a cute chick." Nuff said.
I'm sorry, I can't let this one go. Are you seriously going to defend people who sell crack cocaine, amphetamines, PCP, and LSD? I'm not going to get into the arguments over marijuana -- that's another day. But most of these people deserve to be exactly where they are. Anyone who makes a living off of creating misery and death for others ought to be imprisoned, shot, or worse. These fools ruin lives and kill people to make money. They don't even have the pathetic defense of "helping the economy" or "bettering society". You are going to sit there and whine about them being persecuted? Damn straight. I don't think they are persecuted enough.
I used to work crazy hours at the job that I still have. I was in the process of rebuilding a network from the ground up -- developing new workstation images, building new servers, adding in new functionality, and fighting a lot of fires that resulted from the previous configuration. I realized three things from that experience:
1)Crazy hours will sometimes be required for those whose job is to support the systems that run the world 24x7. There were several weeks where my hours were over 70 with most of those running from 8PM to 8AM every night. If you can't deal with that, don't work in this industry.
2)The only person who is at fault for burning you out is you. Dammit, if you're burning out, STOP working so much. I used to take between 100 and 120 pre-sales tech calls a day. It fried me. I hated dealing with our customers. It ended my usefulness as a call-taker. And it was my fault. I work more now than I did then, but it's something I enjoy a lot more, and I am very careful not to overdo it.
3)If you are consistently working massive hours of overtime for very long periods of time (i.e. years)and it is causing you problems there are two things that can be wrong: either you are an incredibly inefficient worker, or your employers expect too much from you. It can be a combination of both. Before you go to your boss to talk about it, make sure you've eliminated anything on your side that they can point to.
On the flip side, if it isn't causing you problems, why worry about it? Some people can focus and work better for long periods at a time. It tends to be common in this industry. Some jobs are so much fun that you don't even see them as work. FIGURE OUT WHERE AND HOW YOU WORK BEST and deal with it. In other words, to use a quote from a very long time ago:
KNOW THYSELF
It'll make being happier a lot easier, and who cares if you're working a lot of overtime if you're happy! Isn't that the point?
About that linked study:
I'd say that their conclusions are backwards. "Social misfits tend to heavily use the Internet" should have been the title. Everyone I've ever met who is a computer junkie despises dealing with most of the people around them. They've discovered that there are other people out there that they can identify with, and those people can be communicated with and relationships established via the internet. Most have a small circle of similar-minded friends that they hang out with in the RW, and that is the physical interaction they have. The internet is their savior, not their demon.
What the ramifications of that are I'm not really qualified to explore, but I'd say it's a good thing. I like using the net to keep up with my friends and family, it is...more efficient. I mean, my family is scattered all over the US. If I tried to keep up with them by visiting, I would be traveling all the time. Not that I keep up with them a lot, mind you, but the power is there -- the closeness is there. Also there is the ability to temporarily or permanently severe the link if space is needed or you need to get away from someone. It's nice. It doesn't replace learning how to deal with people, it just adds a new set of tools and expectations.
X-Com! Still one of the greatest games ever -- I started playing again a few days ago and got hooked again. X-Com 2? Maybe, that one was pretty good too. How about an update with better AI, graphics, etc?
Warning: I've been reading the injunction against 2600, so I'm in sort of a legal mood, but IANAL. So, some interesting thoughts:
Could the GPL be used as a legal lever to open up all source code? Probably not, since I would think that you would have to show "probable cause" to obtain a court order to examine the offending code. What sort of evidence would constitute that "probable cause"?
Any software company would clearly be in violation of the GPL if they re-licensed part or all of a GPL'd piece of software. How does one define "part" of a software program? Is there a certain level of granularity where code becomes generic? I mean, you can't copyright the if-then-else format -- or can you?
Isn't one of the points of the open source movement to improve coding techniques and code quality? Following that line of thought, wouldn't one be at least a little happy if Microsoft (for example, I've nothing against Microsoft) included some code in their product that was known and solid? How far are we willing to go with subverting proprietary code in order to further the open source movement? I mean, by the theories we all hold dear, eventually the proprietary code would fall behind in development, and Microsoft would be forced to update, again using the open source software. As new functionality is added, it would be easier for Microsoft to just use the related open source programs rather than write their own, thus furthering the quality and "known" aspect of their products, probably to the point where most of their product was taken from open sources. Now, that would be in direct conflict with the GPL (assuming Microsoft continued to sell their products under a restrictive license) but how "bad" would that actually be for developers and the world as a whole?
Aetius
As always, flaming, diatribing, thoughtful commentary, and logical destruction of my position is welcome.
It isn't just computer security that suffers -- read Rogue Warrior by Richard Marcinko. His Red Cell team play-acted as terrorists to evaluate Navy security, and the same attitude was present -- most of the commanders were too worried about looking bad to actually implement real security.
Aetius
Why offend someone with style when you can offend them with substance?
Just because it is a cliche doesn't make it untrue. I read the other criticisms, and they reflected the same lack of research and depth. Normally, this wouldn't be so bad, but Mr. Wood is criticizing Katz for the same thing he himself is doing. That just rubs me the wrong way.
Money is one of the measurements of success, if one defines success as being honored and revered (couldn't think of better words) by the society that one lives in. People who are "successful" in American society tend to make a lot of money. Hell, I would argue that I equate money with success -- when I get a raise, I feel that I am liked and honored by the company I work for. Money is a way of saying, I think you are a good worker/film maker/software engineer/whatever. What your society thinks about you is important to most people, even those who claim not to care. Some people are able to define success differently, and they are also generally considered "successful" by our society. How do you define success?
Movies are inherently not accurate depictions. How can I show an accurate depiction of a real event in less than three hours? Come on.
Define "proper decision making". Are you implying that movies should be morally correct and show good moral decisions? How exactly are you going to do that? Come on.
People ARE fools, and sometimes portraying them like that is more accurate than not. I'm a fool sometimes -- sometimes I lose my glasses when I'm wearing them. That's not just funny, it's realistic. Any movie that does not portray humans as fools, at least a little bit, lacks some serious credibility.
Generally you should not let a group of individuals who have little to gain affect the general betterment of the group. In real life such sacrifices do not get anywhere because they are pointless except for allegorical purposes for future generations nothing more.
I'm not sure what this last bit is about, so I can only say that I'm sure all of the people who fought in WWII would just love to be categorized as "pointless except for allegorical purposes". Perhaps you would like to expound upon your statement?
This "Deconstructing Katz" article is ludicrous. Whoever this guy is, he does less background research than Katz. For example:
where Katz commits such memorable aphorisms to paper as:
Movies (and TV) are, after all, one of a culture's most revealing, reliable mirrors.
And what does this tell us about ancient Rome? or should I watch a rerun of 'Ben Hur'? If this is true of the United States, I'm glad I don't live there. I'd hate to think that the Jerry Springer show was real life, or that Katz appearing on the Today Show would indicate that many Americans using the Internet are just like Katz.
No, he said mirror, not window. What does it say about Rome that they used to kill people for entertainment? What does it say about the US when people actually watch Jerry Springer and WWF? These are basic history and sociology questions that are the focus of a lot of current research. A quick search on Google with the terms "sociology" and "television" will show you how much. I counted three books or papers on the first two pages. In this instance, Katz was making a mistake, I think, by narrowing entertainment to movies and TV, but that's an arguable point. Mr. Wood's apparent misunderstanding of that might be forgiven once, but...
Or:
Geeks bit the heads off of chickens and rats in carnivals at the beginning of the century in exchange for room and board.
Suggesting that Alice Cooper, faded mainstream media musician who gets television time as an indicator of American culture, is a geek, strikes me as rather, well, odd. Come again?
This is just gross lack of knowledge. What Katz is talking about here is the history of the word "geek". It did, indeed, used to mean a person who would do anything or eat anything for money, a circus sideshow. Anyone who happens to follow X-files would know this, let alone someone who actually has an education.
Intelligent criticism is generally a strength on Slashdot. Quoting this... diatribe is nothing but succumbing to the same laziness that sometimes pervades Katz's writing. Get off your butt and think!
No, what libertarians want to do is reduce the government to its constitutional limits. I have no problem with that. I read Browne's site a bit this afternoon (I'm doing inventory -- gotta take long breaks to avoid going insane) and he seems like a smart, well-spoken guy. Most of what he says makes a lot sense, at least to me. Take a look at what he has to say, and what his party has to say, before you go off and make a statement that is untrue.
The real question is, if he was elected, could Harry Browne really do what he's talking about?
Lets question our assumptions here, people. Why do we feel that the federal government should be involved at all. Why should the government spend this money? Can anyone answer that yes, given the current record of "success" of government programs? Do you really think this is going to have an effect on the quality or numbers of computer-savvy people in the country? Bottom line: I don't want to pay for this.
Why aren't there scholarships for CS-type programs? Oh, wait, there are. Why are CpE, CS, and EE programs so out of whack with what is needed in the real world? Because academia lacks a fundamental understanding of the pace of current technological development. There are many other ways to get to college and become a computer programmer or engineer. This is a totally and completely unnecessary expenditure.
Lets be honest here. The shortage of people to fill the necessary jobs is due to three reasons:
1)colleges don't prepare students for the tasks they will face in the job market because they are seriously behind the power curve in dealing with technology.
2)Competence in a computer-oriented field requires intelligence, dedication, people skills, good math skills, and a voracious appetite for learning. Most people can't or won't do it.
3)The above skills have to come from inside a person -- they come from discipline, integrity, and self-confidence. You can't teach that in school except in an indirect way, by example. And we all know how much our teachers are paid -- we get way more than we pay for, but not as much as we need. This limits the computer workforce to the people who have the guts to do it.
Throwing money at the problem does not work. Get real -- set up a scholarship yourself, or support someone who does, if this really bothers you. Quit automatically assuming that the government has the obligation to solve your problems.
Just think of the government solution as a bubble sort.:)
Ok, this is how it works, if I can remember right:
Both FAT partitions (95/98/NT) and NTFS partitions(NT) follow the same pattern. The individual partitions are divided into two types: Primary-DOS and Extended-DOS.
Primary-DOS partitions are one per physical disk, with a maximum of four per system. The Primary partition on the first physical drive in the system (IDE 0-0 or lowest, SCSI 0 or lowest) gets the "C:" designator if it is readable by the OS selected to boot. Under NT, This C: drive is not necessarily the boot drive(where the OS resides), but if readable will be the "system drive", where NTLDR, BOOT.INI, and the other bootstrap files live. The 4GB limit (in NT4 at least) applies to the "system" drive. This is similar to the restraints on the placement of LILO and the kernel files in Linux. The boot drive, or active partition, need not be on the same drive, although it is wise to keep it simple and keep them together unless you are constrained by something else (4GB swap file?).
After the first readable Primary is assigned to C:, the other Primaries are each assigned a drive letter (again, if readable). Then the Extended-DOS partitions' logical drives are assigned drive letters in order, starting with the first Extended-DOS partition on the first physical disk. After that, peripheral devices are assigned as required, I have no idea how this works.
As was mentioned earlier, in NT you can pretty much change around drive letters as necessary. Under 95/98 you have no choice as far as I know. You can also cause drive letter changes by installing new hard drives. Putting in a new hard drive will shift all of the drives, not just the CDs. There is a fairly simple way to fix this, however. You can do a search through the registry for the drive letter designator (C:, F:) from the previous setup (use regedit, not regedt32). As you find the designator, change it to the correct one. When you are done, change any shortcuts you might have to the various programs, or create new ones. This method is about 90% effective (some software stores paths internally) and a hell of a lot faster than a re-install.
Definitely a drive naming system that is not as simple or as logical as Linux.:)
Anyone who places a network drive at F:, especially on modern machines, is just asking for trouble of all sorts. Sometimes you have to, but changing Netware mappings is pretty simple. Our network drives start at Z: and work down -- simple, elegant, and you never run into the PC drives or any peripherals like Zip drives.
Slashdot Mirror
SAS Institute here in Cary, NC gets slammed all the time for trying to build things and develop roads and infrastructure to support their campus. People claim they are interfering and trying to control the way Cary is developed to further their own ends. You're damned if you do...
Awww, I'm sorry -- where in the Constitution (or in any other document) does it guarantee your right to "move up in society"? Paying someone two dollars a week and charging them a dollar fifty for room and board is good money in some parts of the world. Just because that seems small to you doesn't mean it isn't. That means they have food and a roof, something a lot of people in the world don't have. Get a real perspective (i.e., go somewhere besides America and get an appreciation for the amazing benefits you have living here).
This is one of the essential fallacies of people who don't know, understand, or use NT. Just because NT is easier to get running doesn't means it is easier to keep running. Anyone who can only keep an NT box running for a week should start looking for another job, because they aren't going to last long at the one they have.
I hate people talking about something they know nothing about. NT admins face the same issues and concerns as UNIX admins -- security, stability, ease of use, user happiness. We deal with the same crap as other admins. We have to spend the time reading the docs too. And you know what? My skill set has survived five versions of Windows, innumerable versions of the Linux kernel, and two versions of Netware.
Now, I'll be the first to admit that NT is lagging in power and configurability, but it isn't by any massive margin. I prefer Linux for both practical and philosophical reasons, but NT is a useable, viable OS that runs quite a few small to medium businesses. Period. The people who made that decision aren't stupid (I'm one of em), they are practical. NT is fast to set up, and in a changing, developing environment, that can be key. For something that has to be done NOW by someone who is learning on the fly (how many times have we all done that?), NT is (usually) forgiving of mistakes.
Bottom line: it always comes down to the people. If you have an idiot running an NT system, it ain't going to work for long. If you have an idiot running a UNIX system, it'll run forever and be used as a DDOS host. An idiot is still an idiot, and the system is going to suck, either way.
AetiusIf you want to see a 2.0 version, load a stock install of NT 4.0 -- 2.0something was bundled with it (eeeewwwww!). 3.x was the HTML3 compatible browser and was fairly rapidly eclipsed by 4. I've worked with em all.
Assuming the computers are grounded, there's not much danger of injury -- the ethernet card would short out, destroying the computer and breaking or fusing the circuit. You'd be in more danger of grounding the whole building, and blowing out all of your circuit breakers (probably fuses in a building that old).
One more point -- they had it for a month or two before anyone noticed? Bravo, bravo. Sigh
AetiusThat's what the parachute is for. :)
All you really need is somewhere to land -- you could park this by rolling it into a space just like a car. In fact, from the look of it, you probably could store two or three of them in a parking space, if you could fold up the rotors like Navy helicopters. Roofs would be ideal for heavily populated areas -- new parking structures on top of buildings? Eeesh.
AetiusYou're missing the point. What these guys are saying is that here is an opportunity to tinker with satellites, even junky annoying ones. Sure, their orbits will eventually decay and they will be destroyed. No one wants to replace them. But why can't we keep them up until the end of their useful life? I mean, when is anyone going to have a chance just to work with a satellite? How much would it take just to keep the ground stations running on a shoestring?
This is the argument I see these guys making: Lets try doing something with these satellites instead of just destroying them. Maybe we can't do anything with them, maybe we can. But don't just wipe em out without looking into it. We may not have another chance like this for a while. It is at least worth looking into.
Just myDisclaimer: I am a Linux user. I like Linux. I have issues with Linux. Deal with it. Here goes.
Maybe this isn't obvious to me, but why is EaseOfUse != Powerful when it comes to software interfaces? I just don't see the problem here, except that people are too lazy or too time-pressured to develop a decent interface.
For my (only half-decent) example I'm going to use the software that was written for my scanner, a Umax 610P. I love my scanner interface. (Kudos to whoever wrote it if you are reading this.) The interface has two modes, easy and expert. This is a compromise, but one that works well in this case. The easy mode is basically two buttons, Preview and Scan, with a simple, easy interface that allows you to crop what is actually scanned. The Expert Mode is a well-laid out, very simple interface that presents all of the options that the scanner can handle. It is clear, simple, and obvious, even to people who don't know anything about imaging. The only problem is that this software isn't Open Source (AFAIK), which is the only thing lacking in an otherwise excellent piece of software.
The reason I like this software so much is that it takes care of two of the three levels of user, one of which I happen to belong to. The three levels are:
NovicePower-User
Professional/Developer
In this case, I fall into the Power-User category, someone who needs to use most of the features of the scanner but who doesn't have the time to program his own interface, etc. Now the deal with this is that EVERYONE , at one time or another, falls into all three categories. NO ONE can be a professional and developer on every piece of software they use. Therefore, one has to design most software with at least the Power-User in mind.
And that is the crux of the matter. I think that a lot of programmers hold the view that if someone is too lazy, doesn't have time, has no desire, or is too dumb to understand a complicated interface shouldn't be using their product in the first place. Now, before I get flamed, there is a place for this sentiment, and it is a valid view. But don't let it blind you to the benefits of making an easy-to-learn, powerful interface that more people can grasp. After all, we're trying to benefit everyone, that is the thrust behind Open Source. And if you develop for the Power-User, i.e. other developers who must use the product but don't have time to deal with learning the ins and outs of the product, they will bless you, and Linux can continue in its inexorable march to world domination
Linux is not widely accepted on the desktop because it is a PAIN IN THE ASS to learn. The help files suck, particularly for people who are just learning the interface. Microsoft's help files suck for the opposite reason -- they don't assist the knowledgeable user with difficult tasks. The Linux and Microsoft command lines makes perfect sense -- if you know the commands, which have to be memorized. Editing a text file is easy -- if you know the format and how to lay out the file. If you don't, you have to figure it out from the pathetic documentation. This is possible for a smart person (my first experience with Linux was setting up the XF86Config file, ooh fun), but is time-intensive and frustrating. Editing the Registry is just hopeless, due entirely to the crappy interface (can you say...weak?). The GNOME desktop interface is counter-intuitive to a Microsoft-trained user (which is most people), but on top of that it does things that make no logical sense. I have yet to figure out the Alt-Tab sequence of window-switching, as it appears to be random (Just switch 1-2-3-4 guys!). It probably makes sense from the viewpoint of the code, but it doesn't make sense to my eyes and hands, which is what matters when I'm using it.
You know, it seems to me that the rules of designing a good interface are simple:
1)Don't mess with what the user is doing. Microsoft is particularly bad about this (ever had your start bar disappear when another app refreshes the desktop?).
2)Keep things consistent and logical, at least within your program. If your program interfaces with the desktop (Explorer, KDE, GNOME) then stick to the conventions. You guys who write the conventions, make them make sense!
3)Don't hide functionality from your user. Everything should be simply laid out, in a logical format, accessible by both mouse and keyboard. Everything configurable in your software should be here, not in some random registry setting or text file -- that kind of editing should be reserved for software modification or emergencies.
4)Don't present everything to your user at once all smashed together (Exchange 5.5 config menus, anyone?). Logical design, dammit! You're a programmer -- if you don't understand logic, just give it up now. It isn't easy, I know, and programmers are naturally lazy -- so design the interface to be as fast and as easy as possible, which means paying attention to learnability, layout, and keyboard access.
5)Talk to your users -- all of them, from fellow developers to the Joe off the street. They may have crackpot ideas, they may have good ideas, but they are the reason you are there in the first place. Get out there and talk to them. One user's comments are waaaaaayyyy better than none, and the more you get, the better off you are.
Lack of useability is YOUR fault, not the user. Don't go down the Microsoft path of denying users power to make things easier. Fast, easy, and powerful IS possible in my opinion, you just have to work at it. Learn! And remember, you may be using someone else's software tomorrow, and you'll be wishing that they had spent the time to give you a good experience...
AetiusHere's a thought. Assume that all this information is being collected. Massive, massive amounts of data, a huge mountain of data that even the fastest machine and the most sophisticated software takes time to go through. It's fairly accurate, most of the time, and people come to rely on it for various things just as they came to rely on computers today.
What about those who have the intelligence and skill to defeat these monitoring systems? The Stainless Steel Rat, or rather the Silicon Rat, of the future? This would be a person who figures out a way into the system that isn't checked or monitored -- and with a system that large, you know the chinks are going to be everywhere. Once in the system, they learn how defeat the various monitors -- feeding in false video signals, altering heat-sensor records, and intercepting the audio stream and co-opting it for their own use. These people will be essentially invisible, able to take on any identity of any person on a moments notice, to assume the thermal pattern of a 12-year-old child (at least in the eyes of the computer), and mask their activity in either a quiet ripple of data modification or a burgeoning wake of destruction.
I like a comment from the book "Hammer's Slammers" by David Drake. Paraphrasing, "Seeing the satellite image of something happening is one thing -- interpreting it as hostile activity is something else." People are endlessly adaptable, much more so than corporations or governments. These cameras that have been installed are effective now (read the Brin chapter)-- but what happens when the criminals figure out how to beat them? Having cameras in a bank doesn't stop people from robbing it -- they just adopt defenses like masks. Anyone who thinks that this spread of technology won't foster an increasingly technological brand of criminal is deluding him/herself.
What does this mean? It means the only people that these cameras are going to be spying on is normal, law-abiding people, since most criminals will figure out ways around them. Ask any real-world physical security expert. You cannot design a system that can't be defeated -- and the larger the system, the easier it is to defeat it. The root and main component of security will always be alert people, not computers. THIS MEANS YOU! Protect your data!
So we destroy the delicate environment of the desert, eliminate a few more species (especially those pesky sidewinders), just in the name of somewhere to live? How can you be so insensitive?
Everywhere you live is a trade-off. Every choice you make environmentally is a compromise. We need to learn how to handle where we live before we go and move into a new area. The desert is just as beautiful and valuable as everywhere else in the world, with the single exception of growing food (which is changing). Think about this idea a little further.
AetiusI think a friend of mine hit the nail right on the head. He said,
"If I'm going to be staring at this EverQuest character for six to eight hours a day for months at a time, I want this character to be a cute chick." Nuff said.
I'm sorry, I can't let this one go. Are you seriously going to defend people who sell crack cocaine, amphetamines, PCP, and LSD? I'm not going to get into the arguments over marijuana -- that's another day. But most of these people deserve to be exactly where they are. Anyone who makes a living off of creating misery and death for others ought to be imprisoned, shot, or worse. These fools ruin lives and kill people to make money. They don't even have the pathetic defense of "helping the economy" or "bettering society". You are going to sit there and whine about them being persecuted? Damn straight. I don't think they are persecuted enough.
Aetius
About the hours-a-week:
I used to work crazy hours at the job that I still have. I was in the process of rebuilding a network from the ground up -- developing new workstation images, building new servers, adding in new functionality, and fighting a lot of fires that resulted from the previous configuration. I realized three things from that experience:
1)Crazy hours will sometimes be required for those whose job is to support the systems that run the world 24x7. There were several weeks where my hours were over 70 with most of those running from 8PM to 8AM every night. If you can't deal with that, don't work in this industry.
2)The only person who is at fault for burning you out is you. Dammit, if you're burning out, STOP working so much. I used to take between 100 and 120 pre-sales tech calls a day. It fried me. I hated dealing with our customers. It ended my usefulness as a call-taker. And it was my fault. I work more now than I did then, but it's something I enjoy a lot more, and I am very careful not to overdo it.
3)If you are consistently working massive hours of overtime for very long periods of time (i.e. years)and it is causing you problems there are two things that can be wrong: either you are an incredibly inefficient worker, or your employers expect too much from you. It can be a combination of both. Before you go to your boss to talk about it, make sure you've eliminated anything on your side that they can point to.
On the flip side, if it isn't causing you problems, why worry about it? Some people can focus and work better for long periods at a time. It tends to be common in this industry. Some jobs are so much fun that you don't even see them as work. FIGURE OUT WHERE AND HOW YOU WORK BEST and deal with it. In other words, to use a quote from a very long time ago:
KNOW THYSELF
It'll make being happier a lot easier, and who cares if you're working a lot of overtime if you're happy! Isn't that the point?
About that linked study:
I'd say that their conclusions are backwards. "Social misfits tend to heavily use the Internet" should have been the title. Everyone I've ever met who is a computer junkie despises dealing with most of the people around them. They've discovered that there are other people out there that they can identify with, and those people can be communicated with and relationships established via the internet. Most have a small circle of similar-minded friends that they hang out with in the RW, and that is the physical interaction they have. The internet is their savior, not their demon.
What the ramifications of that are I'm not really qualified to explore, but I'd say it's a good thing. I like using the net to keep up with my friends and family, it is...more efficient. I mean, my family is scattered all over the US. If I tried to keep up with them by visiting, I would be traveling all the time. Not that I keep up with them a lot, mind you, but the power is there -- the closeness is there. Also there is the ability to temporarily or permanently severe the link if space is needed or you need to get away from someone. It's nice. It doesn't replace learning how to deal with people, it just adds a new set of tools and expectations.
AetiusX-Com! Still one of the greatest games ever -- I started playing again a few days ago and got hooked again. X-Com 2? Maybe, that one was pretty good too. How about an update with better AI, graphics, etc?
Warning: I've been reading the injunction against 2600, so I'm in sort of a legal mood, but IANAL. So, some interesting thoughts:
Could the GPL be used as a legal lever to open up all source code? Probably not, since I would think that you would have to show "probable cause" to obtain a court order to examine the offending code. What sort of evidence would constitute that "probable cause"?
Any software company would clearly be in violation of the GPL if they re-licensed part or all of a GPL'd piece of software. How does one define "part" of a software program? Is there a certain level of granularity where code becomes generic? I mean, you can't copyright the if-then-else format -- or can you?
Isn't one of the points of the open source movement to improve coding techniques and code quality? Following that line of thought, wouldn't one be at least a little happy if Microsoft (for example, I've nothing against Microsoft) included some code in their product that was known and solid? How far are we willing to go with subverting proprietary code in order to further the open source movement? I mean, by the theories we all hold dear, eventually the proprietary code would fall behind in development, and Microsoft would be forced to update, again using the open source software. As new functionality is added, it would be easier for Microsoft to just use the related open source programs rather than write their own, thus furthering the quality and "known" aspect of their products, probably to the point where most of their product was taken from open sources. Now, that would be in direct conflict with the GPL (assuming Microsoft continued to sell their products under a restrictive license) but how "bad" would that actually be for developers and the world as a whole?
Aetius
As always, flaming, diatribing, thoughtful commentary, and logical destruction of my position is welcome.
It isn't just computer security that suffers -- read Rogue Warrior by Richard Marcinko. His Red Cell team play-acted as terrorists to evaluate Navy security, and the same attitude was present -- most of the commanders were too worried about looking bad to actually implement real security.
Aetius
Why offend someone with style when you can offend them with substance?
Just because it is a cliche doesn't make it untrue. I read the other criticisms, and they reflected the same lack of research and depth. Normally, this wouldn't be so bad, but Mr. Wood is criticizing Katz for the same thing he himself is doing. That just rubs me the wrong way.
Money is one of the measurements of success, if one defines success as being honored and revered (couldn't think of better words) by the society that one lives in. People who are "successful" in American society tend to make a lot of money. Hell, I would argue that I equate money with success -- when I get a raise, I feel that I am liked and honored by the company I work for. Money is a way of saying, I think you are a good worker/film maker/software engineer/whatever. What your society thinks about you is important to most people, even those who claim not to care. Some people are able to define success differently, and they are also generally considered "successful" by our society. How do you define success?
Ummmm, so you like Titanic and Toy Story?
Movies are inherently not accurate depictions. How can I show an accurate depiction of a real event in less than three hours? Come on.
Define "proper decision making". Are you implying that movies should be morally correct and show good moral decisions? How exactly are you going to do that? Come on.
People ARE fools, and sometimes portraying them like that is more accurate than not. I'm a fool sometimes -- sometimes I lose my glasses when I'm wearing them. That's not just funny, it's realistic. Any movie that does not portray humans as fools, at least a little bit, lacks some serious credibility.
Generally you should not let a group of individuals who have little to gain affect the general betterment of the group. In real life such sacrifices do not get anywhere because they are pointless except for allegorical purposes for future generations nothing more.
I'm not sure what this last bit is about, so I can only say that I'm sure all of the people who fought in WWII would just love to be categorized as "pointless except for allegorical purposes". Perhaps you would like to expound upon your statement?
This "Deconstructing Katz" article is ludicrous. Whoever this guy is, he does less background research than Katz. For example:
where Katz commits such memorable aphorisms to paper as:
Movies (and TV) are, after all, one of a culture's most revealing, reliable mirrors.
And what does this tell us about ancient Rome? or should I watch a rerun of 'Ben Hur'? If this is true of the United States, I'm glad I don't live there. I'd hate to think that the Jerry Springer show was real life, or that Katz appearing on the Today Show would indicate that many Americans using the Internet are just like Katz.
No, he said mirror, not window. What does it say about Rome that they used to kill people for entertainment? What does it say about the US when people actually watch Jerry Springer and WWF? These are basic history and sociology questions that are the focus of a lot of current research. A quick search on Google with the terms "sociology" and "television" will show you how much. I counted three books or papers on the first two pages. In this instance, Katz was making a mistake, I think, by narrowing entertainment to movies and TV, but that's an arguable point. Mr. Wood's apparent misunderstanding of that might be forgiven once, but...
Or:
Geeks bit the heads off of chickens and rats in carnivals at the beginning of the century in exchange for room and board.
Suggesting that Alice Cooper, faded mainstream media musician who gets television time as an indicator of American culture, is a geek, strikes me as rather, well, odd. Come again?
This is just gross lack of knowledge. What Katz is talking about here is the history of the word "geek". It did, indeed, used to mean a person who would do anything or eat anything for money, a circus sideshow. Anyone who happens to follow X-files would know this, let alone someone who actually has an education.
Intelligent criticism is generally a strength on Slashdot. Quoting this ... diatribe is nothing but succumbing to the same laziness that sometimes pervades Katz's writing. Get off your butt and think!
The point of the patent system is this:
Inventors want money for their work.
Corporations or other individuals will steal their work and sell it if the inventor releases it out to the public.
Patents allow the corporations or other people to sell the product or use the process, while making sure the inventor doesn't get screwed.
The problem we have now is not the system itself, but the fact that it is being arbitrarily run and the examiners aren't doing their job.
Got it?
No, what libertarians want to do is reduce the government to its constitutional limits. I have no problem with that. I read Browne's site a bit this afternoon (I'm doing inventory -- gotta take long breaks to avoid going insane) and he seems like a smart, well-spoken guy. Most of what he says makes a lot sense, at least to me. Take a look at what he has to say, and what his party has to say, before you go off and make a statement that is untrue.
The real question is, if he was elected, could Harry Browne really do what he's talking about?
So how would you select someone to lead your town/city/country? Come on now, you can't make a statement like that and not provide an alternative!
Lets question our assumptions here, people. Why do we feel that the federal government should be involved at all. Why should the government spend this money? Can anyone answer that yes, given the current record of "success" of government programs? Do you really think this is going to have an effect on the quality or numbers of computer-savvy people in the country? Bottom line: I don't want to pay for this.
Why aren't there scholarships for CS-type programs? Oh, wait, there are. Why are CpE, CS, and EE programs so out of whack with what is needed in the real world? Because academia lacks a fundamental understanding of the pace of current technological development. There are many other ways to get to college and become a computer programmer or engineer. This is a totally and completely unnecessary expenditure.
Lets be honest here. The shortage of people to fill the necessary jobs is due to three reasons:
1)colleges don't prepare students for the tasks they will face in the job market because they are seriously behind the power curve in dealing with technology.
2)Competence in a computer-oriented field requires intelligence, dedication, people skills, good math skills, and a voracious appetite for learning. Most people can't or won't do it.
3)The above skills have to come from inside a person -- they come from discipline, integrity, and self-confidence. You can't teach that in school except in an indirect way, by example. And we all know how much our teachers are paid -- we get way more than we pay for, but not as much as we need. This limits the computer workforce to the people who have the guts to do it.
Throwing money at the problem does not work. Get real -- set up a scholarship yourself, or support someone who does, if this really bothers you. Quit automatically assuming that the government has the obligation to solve your problems.
Just think of the government solution as a bubble sort. :)
AetiusIt's not that they tell you how to uninstall Linux, its that the instructions are wrong.
Aetius
Ok, this is how it works, if I can remember right:
Both FAT partitions (95/98/NT) and NTFS partitions(NT) follow the same pattern. The individual partitions are divided into two types: Primary-DOS and Extended-DOS.
Primary-DOS partitions are one per physical disk, with a maximum of four per system. The Primary partition on the first physical drive in the system (IDE 0-0 or lowest, SCSI 0 or lowest) gets the "C:" designator if it is readable by the OS selected to boot. Under NT, This C: drive is not necessarily the boot drive(where the OS resides), but if readable will be the "system drive", where NTLDR, BOOT.INI, and the other bootstrap files live. The 4GB limit (in NT4 at least) applies to the "system" drive. This is similar to the restraints on the placement of LILO and the kernel files in Linux. The boot drive, or active partition, need not be on the same drive, although it is wise to keep it simple and keep them together unless you are constrained by something else (4GB swap file?).
After the first readable Primary is assigned to C:, the other Primaries are each assigned a drive letter (again, if readable). Then the Extended-DOS partitions' logical drives are assigned drive letters in order, starting with the first Extended-DOS partition on the first physical disk. After that, peripheral devices are assigned as required, I have no idea how this works.
As was mentioned earlier, in NT you can pretty much change around drive letters as necessary. Under 95/98 you have no choice as far as I know. You can also cause drive letter changes by installing new hard drives. Putting in a new hard drive will shift all of the drives, not just the CDs. There is a fairly simple way to fix this, however. You can do a search through the registry for the drive letter designator (C:, F:) from the previous setup (use regedit, not regedt32). As you find the designator, change it to the correct one. When you are done, change any shortcuts you might have to the various programs, or create new ones. This method is about 90% effective (some software stores paths internally) and a hell of a lot faster than a re-install.
Definitely a drive naming system that is not as simple or as logical as Linux. :)
Anyone who places a network drive at F:, especially on modern machines, is just asking for trouble of all sorts. Sometimes you have to, but changing Netware mappings is pretty simple. Our network drives start at Z: and work down -- simple, elegant, and you never run into the PC drives or any peripherals like Zip drives.
Just my .02,
Aetius