Of all genres, punk is one that really is better suited to young musicians.
Why? Because a pastiche is less obviously a pastiche if the people doing it aren't as old and withered as the style they're aping? Or because we're supposed to go, "Haw haw, clever kids, embracing the idea of the destruction of genre forms by...embracing a genre form..." Both seem pretty worn out and tired to me. Geriatric hip-hop would be positively original by comparison, and then that's only because we haven't had that many pushing-60s going for it (yet). And by comparison, of course.
Many of them are marked Explicit, so I know I never heard them on the radio. Just how do the explicit albums get popular to make the top 100? Peer to peer maybe?
Radio/tv edits, more likely. At least with the kids.
But, the fact that there really isn't a "retail service counter" in the Linux community is exactly why Joe End-User and Jane IT-Manager won't ever migrate to Linux for a desktop solution.
There is a "retail service counter" and it's called purchasing support. Here's why shop staff and the like will often take your guff with a smile: they're paid to do so, and putting their job on the line for the satisfaction of putting you in your place for being an unreasonable, callous excuse for a human being is often not worth it.
The other step is to swallow your pride and act exactly as if support IS a "retail service counter". If someone says, "This piece of shit won't work," the correct response is not, "fuck you and the horse you rode in on." The correct response is, "Well let me show you how to make it work, cause it's a really cool bit of software that allows you to do so much more."
No, it isn't. There is absolutely *no reason* why someone should volunteer their help to somebody who, from the outset, is largely rejecting it. This is not so much a software-related issue as it is a social one: people who behave like screaming assholes every time they don't get their way ought not to be encouraged that this sort of behavior is acceptable. Each time it gets them their way, it furthers the idea that it's a perfectly valid and reasonable way of getting somewhere. It's not.
...to a typically hostile bitch-session that involves a lot of whining and hand-wringing coupled with very little obvious want to actually solve a problem. Really, why are so you shocked? This isn't a retail service counter: coming in and bitching "Your piece of shit failed to do this and that" isn't going to result in anybody putting their tongue up your ass.
You want help? Great: ask for it. You want to rant and moan? Fine. Don't be shocked when you get the same in kind.
The market has spoken....just clone the damn Photoshop UI. It's not a
difficult concept.
Don't be so sure. The market uses Photoshop for *everything*. It's not just an image editor to most: it's a swiss army knife. A lot of what it gets used for isn't handled particularly well.
Key example: page layout. Photoshop is *not* a layout package, and yet it seems that nearly everyone, from teenagers using pirate copies to make flyers for their bands to a shocking amount of seasoned industry professionals use it as such. InDesign is a layout package, quite possibly the most *beautiful* and technically *incredible* GUI-centric layout application going (and I say this as someone who generally loathes proprietary apps: InDesign is basically sex when it comes to doing print work). Adobe makes it, and so the UI is so incredibly similar to Photoshop that nobody familiar with Photoshop should have a tough time picking up on the basics.
And yet does it get used? No, not nearly often enough. Too many folks are content to struggle with placing images in dozens of separate layers, ignoring proper typographic controls, etc. Granted, it's not as bad as it used to be, especially with CS suite apps now rendering fonts more cleanly and accurately, but it's still bad, and you can see this in most pieces of print collateral you come across on a day-to-day basis.
So don't be all convinced the UI is the central thing. Better, similarly-branded and even similarly-functional tools for adjacent but more specific, different tasks are available, and the market once again fails to make an informed decision. It's like the market choosing to opt for Heineken over Budweiser: yes, great they've picked something of a fair amount quality for once, but just why in the name of fuck does the tunnel vision kick in there? There's even better, more refined stuff out there that takes about the same distance to seek out and adapt to, but it's way easier to be blind to something just a little different.
The only reason I use gimp is because it's free, not because I like it better. I've started putting the bug in my boss's ear about photoshop, because Gimp is just getting on my nerves.
So your boss hasn't seen fit to cough up the cash yet, eh? Have you contributed feedback to the UI blog referenced by the/. post, and if you haven't, would you mind doing so? Granted, one of GIMP's biggest sticking points is a lack of CMYK management, but the other thing would unquestionably be the UI. Sounds like you've got strong opinions, so why not disclose them to ears that are, for once, opting *not* to play deaf?
And yes, I use GIMP as my primary raster editor for much the same reason(s) as you seem to be suggesting. Doing mostly web stuff, I find that it works pretty well, but I'll echo the age-old complaint: I shouldn't have to employ third-party tab/grouping of windows via my WM to keep all the dialogs, palettes, etc. together; this is especially a bitch when flipping between virtual desktops and having to move applications in between them. I will personally be contributing feedback when the morning comes and I'm able to coherently present specific gripes and suggestions on how to alleviate them. Not trying to be an asshole here, just saying, "They're asking, so us users need tell them how to make it better!":)
I hope you aren't right, and afraid you might be...
No advocacy of the hype treadmill here, I assure you. That doesn't make the fact that informed and reasonably articulate individuals will pander to those inclined to react to over-the-top hyperbolic statements any less interesting of a quandary. Perhaps if there *were* real absolutes it'd be a different story, but I suppose we just need to remember that some people believe in their aims so strongly that they see them as such, and are willing to gain support even if the price is to make grandiose exaggerations for the sake of encapsulating a heavy reduction of their point.
This is a breathtakingly bold projection, muted somewhat (weaseled?) by the word "possibly". Nope, haven't RTFA, but most "Chicken Little" pronouncements seem to fizzle sooner than later.
True, but don't discount the power these words tend to have when you're trying to write out something decidedly short-form and sway somebody's position X units that-away so they make a connection when they're reading about/observing related phenomena that smacks of your complaint, recall your little bit of hyperbole, and then fall just a little more in-line with your position. From the War on Terror to the global warming*, this is how many people across the gamut of beliefs and values wind up adopting their positions.
*I was tempted to write 'The Battle for Planet Earth', but I thought it might be confusing. But when the media adopts it, remember folks, you saw it here first.:)
You're so right. After all, Apple's use of non-standard interfaces like PCI, USB, FireWire, AGP and others means that Apple can easily account for anything you've plugged into your Mac. There's only a couple of possible options for PCI slots, surely?
Well, I'm not really talking about hardware interfaces in and of themselves, but I'll skip your bitterly sarcastic tone and respond just the same:
In terms of what's made to be Mac compatible? Yes, absolutely. You're *not* going to find people trying to make hardware without well-crafted and extensively tested drivers for the platform in question plug random pieces in and expect them to work flawlessly when it comes to the Mac. You *are* going to find people doing such with hardware they already have and/or works under some other OS doing such with the free *nix-style OSes. Couple this with the fact that the majority of Macs sold these days are *not* easy-to-upgrade towers, but compact all-in-ones, and the chances of some piece of hardware not getting properly detected on installation or post-software-upgrade becomes slim indeed.
You know, that's one of Mac's strong points. I'm not a fanboy by any means; but I have never had a problem with hardware not working during or after upgrading OS's on a Mac.
Place overtly willful limits on hardware compatibility and things get substantially easier. Apple's OS tends to not have problems with hardware because Apple maintains a tremendous degree of control over the hardware platform in question. This is the thing that people should find *least* impressive about the Mac, because it's one of the most simple by design. Save your gape-mouthed expression for skillfully-designed user interfaces, purty enclosures, and practically seamless use of Unix under the hood.
Stanley Spadowski (played by a pre-Seinfeld Michael Richards) treats a kid who wins a game on his Captain Kangaroo-type show to drink from the firehose. The kid opens his mouth wide to the hose's nozzle, Stanly pulls the lever back, and the kid is promptly blown several feet off his seat.
Yeah, but the truly hilarious part wasn't the kid getting blown off the chair, it was the fact that the victory condition for the game he won was "[finding] the marble in the oatmeal", and his opponents seemed to be two grown adults.
Okay, hilarious or disturbing. But significantly crazier, either way.
Just realized that the "support" referenced is specifically stated as "support from a massive dev team" and thus is different from what I was talking about. This is a mistake on my part. The implication is still ridiculous, though, because the Ubuntu devs tend to do a fine job in terms of package maintenance. Things rarely get broken, and when they are broken, they get fixed quickly. Bugs get patched regularly. That's not so different from Microsoft's way of doing things, except the process is a bit more transparent. When it's necessary, being able to follow what's going on with development as it happens should be looked at as a benefit.
I guarantee that the oldest/most senior users in the french government are going to call IT every time they want to do something they weren't shown how to do, or simply forgot or became too tech-timid, when they were set up with Ubuntu. Despite the fact that "OMG Windoze wantz to rulez world so it suckz" seems to be the normal opinion here, Windows XP is a solid OS with a familiar feel and, most importantly, real support from a massive dev team. As oppossed to a group of nerds who just don't want to pay for software so they build a modified version of Unix for themselves.
Your implication that "real" support does not exist for Ubuntu is utter bullshit, as Canonical sells support for it. And from a wider perspective, if the alleged computer incompetents are in fact present, chances are they'd be phoning IT up for everything regardless of the OS being used.
Are you just upset because a solution that you either don't advocate or are not familiar with might get deployed by an IT department somewhere else in the world, or do you just like to complain about Linux because a lot of people advocate it a bit too noisily? Either's fairly childish. Don't give yourself a heart-attack.
Because the first year of real bureaucratic workers using only Linux will be hell.
Why? Is it because you don't understand Linux, or is it because you think that they'll be doing something requiring a vastly different set of knowledge?
If it's the latter, you're probably being foolish. What complex tasks are bureaucrats going to be left to that require Linux-specific knowledge on their behalf? Sending and receiving email? Viewing web pages? Reading and writing office documents? These are not Linux-centric tasks. Unless they're being asked to perform system administration themselves (which would be ridiculous, this isn't their job), it's very likely everything will be fine.
If it's the former, fair enough. Someone else -likely a person with the appropriate set of skills living in France- will take the job and do just fine.
Just because they're both launchers does not mean that one does the "exact same thing" as the other. That's like saying GIMP does the "exact same thing" as Photoshop.
If you were trying to be helpful, you'd've mentioned what Quicksilver does differently. Of course, you didn't, and you posted AC because you must fear burning karma. Why? If you're that obsessed with karma points, why not go for the easy "informative" points while simultaneously telling me why I'm wrong? Seems fairly stupid to me.
Checking the wikipedia entry on Quicksilver, it does look as though Quicksilver has functionality that goes quite a ways beyond what Katapult presently offers. The standout to me is the idea of cataloging various scripts for handling actions through Quicksilver: "fucking sweet" would be a tremendous understatement. Some common actions can be handled via Katapult (such as finding and playing songs in Amarok), though it doesn't seem to be anywhere near as configurable. This is definitely looks to be one of those areas where the ultra-tight integration of OS X applications pays off heavily, even to a stalwart Linux advocate such as myself. Very nice!
For the record, there's a little application for KDE called Katapult that does the exact same thing as Quicksilver.
But the replying/.er was right: there's still nothing under Linux that compares to Indesign and its amazing typesetting algorithms. Much as I hate Adobe (and believe me, I hate them a lot!), their work on simplifying and automating typesetting is nigh-on breathtaking if you care about beautiful text presentation. The work done on Scribus thus far is impressive, but it's doubtful that it's going to come close in that arena for quite some time.
If a person said, "Gosh, OSX is a real slow beast of an OS, and that's an absolute truth, regardless of the fact that I haven't used it since the first release," it wouldn't stand for a minute. I pointed the same thing out and took flack for it. Selective moderation to match one's opinions such as that is not only moronic, but against the moderation guidelines as well.
Nice one on whomever modded me down. Your biases are rampant and obvious. You're more of a moron than the bloke speaking about that which he knows nothing.
Anyway I guess the points I'm trying to make are
1) Linux is not a desktop OS (if it has changed in the last couple of years perhaps I should take a second look)
So upfront, you admit you're speaking about things quasi-authoritatively but with backdated knowledge supporting your statements. Congratulations on digging your own hole.
Sincerest apologies for the gross oversight. I didn't realize the download was from Sourceforge and instead relied on the sheer lack of mentions of the source code availability one would expect. An honest mistake, but slightly belligerent as well. I admit I was wrong and I am sorry.
This is the second time I've seen this claim made on Slashdot. If this software is open source, where is the source code made available?
...
That's what I thought. Be honest. This is software which has a freely-available edition and a professionally supported edition that works courtesy of interoperation with open source software, but it is not open source in and of itself.
That is what is needed. Linux users to get off their asses and help 1-2 new people through getting up and running in linux. you never EVER can say RTFM! but have to hold their hands.
Nonsense. You should be *encouraging* people to RTFM. Note that this is very different from shouting "Leave me the fuck alone, noob!"
A big part of learning anything to do with computers that gets skipped all over the place is "how to think/how to learn". You should never, ever just hold somebody's hand all the way through a particular task or procedure, because ultimately, this is going to prove detrimental to them. Relevant information should be given to the user, and then, in tackling the problem at hand, the user should be asked a series of questions which will slowly move them in the correct direction, but also help establish a general thought pattern for solving the general category of problem being dealt with. Otherwise, the user may never learn much beyond "I think I can call my helpful friend, they'll tell me exactly what to do," which is akin to a full-grown bird looking for its mother to regurgitate food into its mouth at dinner time.
The funny thing was that they tested my ability to find things in the menu within a couple of tries and didn't let me use keyboard shortcuts.
...which is a completely stupid policy. Even if part of what's being evaluated is something along the lines of general software skills aptitude, it's downright foolish not to allow them. Even in learning how to do something for the first time, the damned shortcuts are listed right on the pull-down menus. What are they suggesting, that they don't want their prospective employees to be quick-thinking and efficient when it comes to menial and repetitive tasks?
Slashdot Mirror
Of all genres, punk is one that really is better suited to young musicians.
Why? Because a pastiche is less obviously a pastiche if the people doing it aren't as old and withered as the style they're aping? Or because we're supposed to go, "Haw haw, clever kids, embracing the idea of the destruction of genre forms by...embracing a genre form..." Both seem pretty worn out and tired to me. Geriatric hip-hop would be positively original by comparison, and then that's only because we haven't had that many pushing-60s going for it (yet). And by comparison, of course.
Many of them are marked Explicit, so I know I never heard them on the radio. Just how do the explicit albums get popular to make the top 100? Peer to peer maybe? Radio/tv edits, more likely. At least with the kids.
But, the fact that there really isn't a "retail service counter" in the Linux community is exactly why Joe End-User and Jane IT-Manager won't ever migrate to Linux for a desktop solution.
There is a "retail service counter" and it's called purchasing support. Here's why shop staff and the like will often take your guff with a smile: they're paid to do so, and putting their job on the line for the satisfaction of putting you in your place for being an unreasonable, callous excuse for a human being is often not worth it.
The other step is to swallow your pride and act exactly as if support IS a "retail service counter". If someone says, "This piece of shit won't work," the correct response is not, "fuck you and the horse you rode in on." The correct response is, "Well let me show you how to make it work, cause it's a really cool bit of software that allows you to do so much more."
No, it isn't. There is absolutely *no reason* why someone should volunteer their help to somebody who, from the outset, is largely rejecting it. This is not so much a software-related issue as it is a social one: people who behave like screaming assholes every time they don't get their way ought not to be encouraged that this sort of behavior is acceptable. Each time it gets them their way, it furthers the idea that it's a perfectly valid and reasonable way of getting somewhere. It's not.
Sadly, a typical response from the OSS community.
...to a typically hostile bitch-session that involves a lot of whining and hand-wringing coupled with very little obvious want to actually solve a problem. Really, why are so you shocked? This isn't a retail service counter: coming in and bitching "Your piece of shit failed to do this and that" isn't going to result in anybody putting their tongue up your ass.
You want help? Great: ask for it. You want to rant and moan? Fine. Don't be shocked when you get the same in kind.
The market has spoken. ...just clone the damn Photoshop UI. It's not a
difficult concept.
Don't be so sure. The market uses Photoshop for *everything*. It's not just an image editor to most: it's a swiss army knife. A lot of what it gets used for isn't handled particularly well.
Key example: page layout. Photoshop is *not* a layout package, and yet it seems that nearly everyone, from teenagers using pirate copies to make flyers for their bands to a shocking amount of seasoned industry professionals use it as such. InDesign is a layout package, quite possibly the most *beautiful* and technically *incredible* GUI-centric layout application going (and I say this as someone who generally loathes proprietary apps: InDesign is basically sex when it comes to doing print work). Adobe makes it, and so the UI is so incredibly similar to Photoshop that nobody familiar with Photoshop should have a tough time picking up on the basics.
And yet does it get used? No, not nearly often enough. Too many folks are content to struggle with placing images in dozens of separate layers, ignoring proper typographic controls, etc. Granted, it's not as bad as it used to be, especially with CS suite apps now rendering fonts more cleanly and accurately, but it's still bad, and you can see this in most pieces of print collateral you come across on a day-to-day basis.
So don't be all convinced the UI is the central thing. Better, similarly-branded and even similarly-functional tools for adjacent but more specific, different tasks are available, and the market once again fails to make an informed decision. It's like the market choosing to opt for Heineken over Budweiser: yes, great they've picked something of a fair amount quality for once, but just why in the name of fuck does the tunnel vision kick in there? There's even better, more refined stuff out there that takes about the same distance to seek out and adapt to, but it's way easier to be blind to something just a little different.
The only reason I use gimp is because it's free, not because I like it better. I've started putting the bug in my boss's ear about photoshop, because Gimp is just getting on my nerves.
So your boss hasn't seen fit to cough up the cash yet, eh? Have you contributed feedback to the UI blog referenced by the /. post, and if you haven't, would you mind doing so? Granted, one of GIMP's biggest sticking points is a lack of CMYK management, but the other thing would unquestionably be the UI. Sounds like you've got strong opinions, so why not disclose them to ears that are, for once, opting *not* to play deaf?
And yes, I use GIMP as my primary raster editor for much the same reason(s) as you seem to be suggesting. Doing mostly web stuff, I find that it works pretty well, but I'll echo the age-old complaint: I shouldn't have to employ third-party tab/grouping of windows via my WM to keep all the dialogs, palettes, etc. together; this is especially a bitch when flipping between virtual desktops and having to move applications in between them. I will personally be contributing feedback when the morning comes and I'm able to coherently present specific gripes and suggestions on how to alleviate them. Not trying to be an asshole here, just saying, "They're asking, so us users need tell them how to make it better!" :)
I hope you aren't right, and afraid you might be...
No advocacy of the hype treadmill here, I assure you. That doesn't make the fact that informed and reasonably articulate individuals will pander to those inclined to react to over-the-top hyperbolic statements any less interesting of a quandary. Perhaps if there *were* real absolutes it'd be a different story, but I suppose we just need to remember that some people believe in their aims so strongly that they see them as such, and are willing to gain support even if the price is to make grandiose exaggerations for the sake of encapsulating a heavy reduction of their point.
This is a breathtakingly bold projection, muted somewhat (weaseled?) by the word "possibly". Nope, haven't RTFA, but most "Chicken Little" pronouncements seem to fizzle sooner than later.
True, but don't discount the power these words tend to have when you're trying to write out something decidedly short-form and sway somebody's position X units that-away so they make a connection when they're reading about/observing related phenomena that smacks of your complaint, recall your little bit of hyperbole, and then fall just a little more in-line with your position. From the War on Terror to the global warming*, this is how many people across the gamut of beliefs and values wind up adopting their positions.
*I was tempted to write 'The Battle for Planet Earth', but I thought it might be confusing. But when the media adopts it, remember folks, you saw it here first. :)
You're so right. After all, Apple's use of non-standard interfaces like PCI, USB, FireWire, AGP and others means that Apple can easily account for anything you've plugged into your Mac. There's only a couple of possible options for PCI slots, surely?
Well, I'm not really talking about hardware interfaces in and of themselves, but I'll skip your bitterly sarcastic tone and respond just the same: In terms of what's made to be Mac compatible? Yes, absolutely. You're *not* going to find people trying to make hardware without well-crafted and extensively tested drivers for the platform in question plug random pieces in and expect them to work flawlessly when it comes to the Mac. You *are* going to find people doing such with hardware they already have and/or works under some other OS doing such with the free *nix-style OSes. Couple this with the fact that the majority of Macs sold these days are *not* easy-to-upgrade towers, but compact all-in-ones, and the chances of some piece of hardware not getting properly detected on installation or post-software-upgrade becomes slim indeed.You know, that's one of Mac's strong points. I'm not a fanboy by any means; but I have never had a problem with hardware not working during or after upgrading OS's on a Mac.
Place overtly willful limits on hardware compatibility and things get substantially easier. Apple's OS tends to not have problems with hardware because Apple maintains a tremendous degree of control over the hardware platform in question. This is the thing that people should find *least* impressive about the Mac, because it's one of the most simple by design. Save your gape-mouthed expression for skillfully-designed user interfaces, purty enclosures, and practically seamless use of Unix under the hood.
Stanley Spadowski (played by a pre-Seinfeld Michael Richards) treats a kid who wins a game on his Captain Kangaroo-type show to drink from the firehose. The kid opens his mouth wide to the hose's nozzle, Stanly pulls the lever back, and the kid is promptly blown several feet off his seat.
Yeah, but the truly hilarious part wasn't the kid getting blown off the chair, it was the fact that the victory condition for the game he won was "[finding] the marble in the oatmeal", and his opponents seemed to be two grown adults.
Okay, hilarious or disturbing. But significantly crazier, either way.
Just realized that the "support" referenced is specifically stated as "support from a massive dev team" and thus is different from what I was talking about. This is a mistake on my part. The implication is still ridiculous, though, because the Ubuntu devs tend to do a fine job in terms of package maintenance. Things rarely get broken, and when they are broken, they get fixed quickly. Bugs get patched regularly. That's not so different from Microsoft's way of doing things, except the process is a bit more transparent. When it's necessary, being able to follow what's going on with development as it happens should be looked at as a benefit.
I guarantee that the oldest/most senior users in the french government are going to call IT every time they want to do something they weren't shown how to do, or simply forgot or became too tech-timid, when they were set up with Ubuntu. Despite the fact that "OMG Windoze wantz to rulez world so it suckz" seems to be the normal opinion here, Windows XP is a solid OS with a familiar feel and, most importantly, real support from a massive dev team. As oppossed to a group of nerds who just don't want to pay for software so they build a modified version of Unix for themselves.
Your implication that "real" support does not exist for Ubuntu is utter bullshit, as Canonical sells support for it. And from a wider perspective, if the alleged computer incompetents are in fact present, chances are they'd be phoning IT up for everything regardless of the OS being used.
Are you just upset because a solution that you either don't advocate or are not familiar with might get deployed by an IT department somewhere else in the world, or do you just like to complain about Linux because a lot of people advocate it a bit too noisily? Either's fairly childish. Don't give yourself a heart-attack.
Because the first year of real bureaucratic workers using only Linux will be hell.
Why? Is it because you don't understand Linux, or is it because you think that they'll be doing something requiring a vastly different set of knowledge?
If it's the latter, you're probably being foolish. What complex tasks are bureaucrats going to be left to that require Linux-specific knowledge on their behalf? Sending and receiving email? Viewing web pages? Reading and writing office documents? These are not Linux-centric tasks. Unless they're being asked to perform system administration themselves (which would be ridiculous, this isn't their job), it's very likely everything will be fine.
If it's the former, fair enough. Someone else -likely a person with the appropriate set of skills living in France- will take the job and do just fine.
Really, what's the problem?
Just because they're both launchers does not mean that one does the "exact same thing" as the other. That's like saying GIMP does the "exact same thing" as Photoshop.
If you were trying to be helpful, you'd've mentioned what Quicksilver does differently. Of course, you didn't, and you posted AC because you must fear burning karma. Why? If you're that obsessed with karma points, why not go for the easy "informative" points while simultaneously telling me why I'm wrong? Seems fairly stupid to me.
Checking the wikipedia entry on Quicksilver, it does look as though Quicksilver has functionality that goes quite a ways beyond what Katapult presently offers. The standout to me is the idea of cataloging various scripts for handling actions through Quicksilver: "fucking sweet" would be a tremendous understatement. Some common actions can be handled via Katapult (such as finding and playing songs in Amarok), though it doesn't seem to be anywhere near as configurable. This is definitely looks to be one of those areas where the ultra-tight integration of OS X applications pays off heavily, even to a stalwart Linux advocate such as myself. Very nice!
For the record, there's a little application for KDE called Katapult that does the exact same thing as Quicksilver.
But the replying /.er was right: there's still nothing under Linux that compares to Indesign and its amazing typesetting algorithms. Much as I hate Adobe (and believe me, I hate them a lot!), their work on simplifying and automating typesetting is nigh-on breathtaking if you care about beautiful text presentation. The work done on Scribus thus far is impressive, but it's doubtful that it's going to come close in that arena for quite some time.
Sheesh! What's with you folks?
If a person said, "Gosh, OSX is a real slow beast of an OS, and that's an absolute truth, regardless of the fact that I haven't used it since the first release," it wouldn't stand for a minute. I pointed the same thing out and took flack for it. Selective moderation to match one's opinions such as that is not only moronic, but against the moderation guidelines as well.
Nice one on whomever modded me down. Your biases are rampant and obvious. You're more of a moron than the bloke speaking about that which he knows nothing.
Anyway I guess the points I'm trying to make are 1) Linux is not a desktop OS (if it has changed in the last couple of years perhaps I should take a second look)
So upfront, you admit you're speaking about things quasi-authoritatively but with backdated knowledge supporting your statements. Congratulations on digging your own hole.
Sincerest apologies for the gross oversight. I didn't realize the download was from Sourceforge and instead relied on the sheer lack of mentions of the source code availability one would expect. An honest mistake, but slightly belligerent as well. I admit I was wrong and I am sorry.
This is the second time I've seen this claim made on Slashdot. If this software is open source, where is the source code made available?
That's what I thought. Be honest. This is software which has a freely-available edition and a professionally supported edition that works courtesy of interoperation with open source software, but it is not open source in and of itself.
That is what is needed. Linux users to get off their asses and help 1-2 new people through getting up and running in linux. you never EVER can say RTFM! but have to hold their hands.
Nonsense. You should be *encouraging* people to RTFM. Note that this is very different from shouting "Leave me the fuck alone, noob!"
A big part of learning anything to do with computers that gets skipped all over the place is "how to think/how to learn". You should never, ever just hold somebody's hand all the way through a particular task or procedure, because ultimately, this is going to prove detrimental to them. Relevant information should be given to the user, and then, in tackling the problem at hand, the user should be asked a series of questions which will slowly move them in the correct direction, but also help establish a general thought pattern for solving the general category of problem being dealt with. Otherwise, the user may never learn much beyond "I think I can call my helpful friend, they'll tell me exactly what to do," which is akin to a full-grown bird looking for its mother to regurgitate food into its mouth at dinner time.
The funny thing was that they tested my ability to find things in the menu within a couple of tries and didn't let me use keyboard shortcuts.
...which is a completely stupid policy. Even if part of what's being evaluated is something along the lines of general software skills aptitude, it's downright foolish not to allow them. Even in learning how to do something for the first time, the damned shortcuts are listed right on the pull-down menus. What are they suggesting, that they don't want their prospective employees to be quick-thinking and efficient when it comes to menial and repetitive tasks?
So he was not fit to be enlisted, yet strong enough to participate in this rigorous physical, combat training and selection process?
Maybe he was the most (ahem) yielding participant in the rigorous physical?
C'mon. Wouldn't be the first or last time submissiveness got somebody a few gold stars.
I'm guessing it's going to look like Walt Disney threw up in Technicolor(TM) all over the floor.
Really? I'd figure it'd be more akin to Ted Turner funded colorization of old black and white Popeye cartoons.
Which is, of course, a polite way of saying "like shit".