And dammit Star Trek SHOULD be at the top of the list. No one can say another sci-fi show has had a greater impact.
I'll agree that Star Trek had a big impact but that doesn't make it any good. I saw an article or essay once that suggested that the only reason Star Trek was so popular was because it was the first time that the general populace had been exposed to sci-fi. Sci-fi writing had moved on from the "go places and do stuff" type of stories thirty years before Star Trek came out.
The acting is ordinary and the characters two dimensional. The plots are simplistic with only the vaguest linking between shows. And, most importantly, the world isn't internally consistant. It always amazed me that the ship's science/engineering officer was always able to come up with the solution to a age old problem just in the nick of time. Strangly the thousands of scientists not working on ships can't do the same.
Compared with the current crop of good sci-fi (Firefly, Farscape, B5 and the new BSG), most of the Star Treks are B grade. Especially the original and TNG.
If you honestly believe they have re-written all of Windows in 18 months then I have a bridge to sell you.
This is probably one of two things. He's telling the truth and they have re-written the core parts. This wont fix the vast mass of code sitting on the core code which relies on the way things used to work.
The other option is this is the latest round of "we've fixed it this time, honest". The result of this is left as an exercise to the reader.
But it might be a good idea to make an announcement next time. Nobody trusts lawyers these days, regardless of who they claim to be acting for.
As for the actual claim of trademark... From what I understand of trademark law it should be rejected on the grounds that it wasn't protected. I bought my first set of linux cds from a company called Linux System Laboratories nearly ten years ago. It bodes badly for Linus in Australia.
The numbers would probably be even better for windows if it was measured by quantity rather than money. At most places, when a windows machine is bought it is bought for doing one thing and one thing only. You end up with a pile of windows boxes doing one thing and being mostly idle.
Unix is more typically loaded up, running as many things as the hardware can handle. When it starts getting too loaded then you buy another one (usually a bigger one).
We've recently bought two quad processor linux machines running vmware to run a dozen or more windows servers. Two linux sales, a dozen windows sales.
I really wonder how much longer the concept of running Windows applications on Linux will be relevant?
It'll be very relevent for older windows apps that don't run on recent windows versions. For me it's specifically old games that I occasionally like to play (such as Fallout).
Fuck the second and third installments of the movie. I want the bloody tv series back!
It is by far the best sci-fi tv show ever. Joss had really got the hang of comedy one minute and grittyness the next and it makes for great tv.
It's a travesty that something this good gets canned while other rubbish gets endless seasons (everytime I see Mutent-X on late night tv there is a deep desire to strangle a tv exec).
Linus isn't saying you can't make money from working on open source. Or that you should plan to do something else. Part of what he's doing is rephrasing something Paul Graham said in one of his essays:
"Great hackers think of it [coding] as something they do for fun, and which they're delighted to find people will pay them for."
The other part of it is pointing out that choosing to go into open source like you'd choose to work in a supermarket at uni, really wont work. In the open source world it gets you almost nowhere because being a good coder is something you can't fake. If you're doing it for the bullet point on your resume then it'll all seem like too much work the first time somebody rips on your code.
All the "evidence" to support that theory comes from a single paper (all three links point to it). If you are will to read a reasoned rebuttal to it then read this.
Short version. The two authors are economists who don't know crap about typing. Dvorak wrote a 500 page book about just typing of which only a small part was about his alternative keyboard. So, believe the suits or believe somebody who actually knows what he's talking about.
Don't you understand that the Holy Religion of the Invisible Pink Elephants, like all religions, is based on faith and logic? We have faith they are pink and we logically know they are invisible because we can't see them.
For something to be a "theory" in science it must be falsifiable. So the theory must predict things and then it must be conceivable to perform experiments based on those predictions and get a yes or no answer. If the experiment gives an unpredicted result then the theory needs to be modifyed or a new one investigated.
A quote I've seen attributed to Asimov:
'The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not "Eureka!" but "That's funny..."'
Intelligent design/creationism are not falsifiable and do not belong in a science class. They belong in a class studying mythology and fairy tales.
Slashdot Mirror
The acting is ordinary and the characters two dimensional. The plots are simplistic with only the vaguest linking between shows. And, most importantly, the world isn't internally consistant. It always amazed me that the ship's science/engineering officer was always able to come up with the solution to a age old problem just in the nick of time. Strangly the thousands of scientists not working on ships can't do the same.
Compared with the current crop of good sci-fi (Firefly, Farscape, B5 and the new BSG), most of the Star Treks are B grade. Especially the original and TNG.
This is probably one of two things. He's telling the truth and they have re-written the core parts. This wont fix the vast mass of code sitting on the core code which relies on the way things used to work.
The other option is this is the latest round of "we've fixed it this time, honest". The result of this is left as an exercise to the reader.
I remember laughing at people at uni who thought you could send a virus to somebody by email.
While the rest of us listen to music, they spend hours listening to silence or noise.
Corporate accounts payable. Mina speaking. Just a moment please.
As for the actual claim of trademark ... From what I understand of trademark law it should be rejected on the grounds that it wasn't protected. I bought my first set of linux cds from a company called Linux System Laboratories nearly ten years ago. It bodes badly for Linus in Australia.
I HOPE YOU'RE HAPPY MR JOBS!
Unix is more typically loaded up, running as many things as the hardware can handle. When it starts getting too loaded then you buy another one (usually a bigger one).
We've recently bought two quad processor linux machines running vmware to run a dozen or more windows servers. Two linux sales, a dozen windows sales.
It is by far the best sci-fi tv show ever. Joss had really got the hang of comedy one minute and grittyness the next and it makes for great tv.
It's a travesty that something this good gets canned while other rubbish gets endless seasons (everytime I see Mutent-X on late night tv there is a deep desire to strangle a tv exec).
- Isaac Newton
If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders.
- Hal Abelson
In computer science, we stand on each other's feet.
- Brian K. Reed
Dilbert is still funny if you happen to be living it.
"Great hackers think of it [coding] as something they do for fun, and which they're delighted to find people will pay them for."
The other part of it is pointing out that choosing to go into open source like you'd choose to work in a supermarket at uni, really wont work. In the open source world it gets you almost nowhere because being a good coder is something you can't fake. If you're doing it for the bullet point on your resume then it'll all seem like too much work the first time somebody rips on your code.
QWERTY was layed out so the Remington typewriter salesman could quickly type "typewriter" using only the top row of the keyboard.
Short version. The two authors are economists who don't know crap about typing. Dvorak wrote a 500 page book about just typing of which only a small part was about his alternative keyboard. So, believe the suits or believe somebody who actually knows what he's talking about.
Don't you understand that the Holy Religion of the Invisible Pink Elephants, like all religions, is based on faith and logic? We have faith they are pink and we logically know they are invisible because we can't see them.
"Pray to God, but keep rowing to shore."
A quote I've seen attributed to Asimov:
'The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" but "That's funny..."'
Intelligent design/creationism are not falsifiable and do not belong in a science class. They belong in a class studying mythology and fairy tales.