Money Ruins Art
Tuesday, March 25, 2008 - 12:11 PM
It’s really too bad what is going on with the film Fanboys. If you’re not familiar with the controversy, Wired has the details. (Make sure you also read their account of how Ernie Cline got the film made in the first place.)
You gotta love this, though:
Steven Brill, director of Little Nicky and Drillbit Taylor was brought in to do several days of reshoots to erase any reference to terminal illness… "Have you seen the cancer version of this movie?" writes Brill in an email to an angry fan. "I have. It is unreleaseable. It would be irresponsible to release it."
Let me get this straight: The studio had the director of Little Nicky and Drillbit Taylor come in to "fix" the movie? I guess he is a pretty good authority on what constitutes bad film making. Too bad he didn’t deem Little Nicky "unreleaseable".
The problem is, basically, that this really should be an independent film, but it’s (unfortunately) being financed by a large company. Large companies (in any industry) have a tendency to want to homogenize things for the masses. The thing is, this really isn’t a film for the masses. This is a film aimed specifically at a select group of people. Since the Weinstein company has severely angered their target audience with this move, it’s hard to see how this move won’t back-fire on them. If they don’t reconsider their actions, this movie will certainly flop. (At least until the "director’s cut" comes out on DVD.)
The article ends with this last bit of irony, from Cline himself:
"Unless you’re putting up all the money yourself, making a movie seems to be an endless series of compromises," [Cline] says. "It’s hard to know what that means until you actually go through it. The Weinstein Company can do whatever they want. They put up the money. But it is against our wishes and it’s done purely for monetary reasons."
It was exactly this sort of interference that caused George Lucas to start his own company and start financing his own films.
Gruber, FTW!
Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 11:11 AM
(Sorry for the internet cliché in the title.)
I took issue with Kahney perpetuating the whole iTunes/iPod tie-in myth.
Gruber rips the whole article to shreds.
Vanilla Porter
Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 08:05 AM
I decided to brew the Vanilla Porter again. That’s the third time for this one - that’s the most I’ve brewed a specific beer.
I had some issues though. First, I wanted to use the porter recipe that I came up with as the "base" for this, instead of the porter kit I’ve used in the past. But, when I had the chance to go to the homebrew store last week I didn’t have my recipe with me, so I ended up just getting the kit.
Second, I didn’t have any vanilla beans. I went to Trader Joe’s (where I’ve gotten them in the past) and they were out. Apparently TJ’s only carries them certain times of the year. That’s a problem. You see, TJ’s vanilla beans are 2 for $5. I went to Dominick’s and there they are $12 - for just one bean! Yikes! I decided to try vanilla extract instead (real vanilla extract, not imitation). A good part of homebrewing is experimenting, right?
We’ll see how it turns out.
Doing it Wrong
Wednesday, March 19, 2008 - 08:31 AM
Wired has an interesting article comparing the way things are done at Apple and how that differs from other Silicon Valley companies. The article focuses quite a bit on Steve Jobs’ management style and business philosophy.
It is a pretty balanced, interesting read, even if the author does echo the complete B.S. about the iPod and iTunes being inextricably tied to each other (a favorite lie of tech journalism).
Ironically, Kahney makes an interesting point towards the end of the article:
Amazon’s Kindle e-reader provides seamless access to a proprietary selection of downloadable books, much as the iTunes Music Store provides direct access to an Apple-curated storefront. And the Nintendo Wii, the Sony PlayStation 3, and the Xbox360 each offer users access to self-contained online marketplaces for downloading games and special features.
The iTunes music (and video) store is nothing more than an add-on to the iPod (and AppleTV). It’s a part of the system. (Although, I can use iTunes completely independently from my iPod, and can play non-iTunes purchased music on my iPod.) It’s funny how people don’t attack Nintendo for not making games downloaded from the Virtual Console playable on a Sony PlayStation; it would be ridiculous to suggest that they should. It’s ironic that iTunes is way more open than any of the other services mentioned in the previous paragraph, yet somehow people (tech journalists) can’t bash Apple enough for making the iPod and iTunes work together.
I give Kahney and Wired credit, though; it’s a rare thing in the world of tech journalism to admit when you’re wrong (especially when it comes to Apple). In a sidebar to the main article, they do just that.
Why You SHOULDN’T Try Linux
Thursday, March 13, 2008 - 10:58 AM
Okay, I know I’m probably going to get flamed for this, but let’s give it a try anyway.
Linux is not ready for prime time on the desktop.
There, I said it. And now that I have, please don’t flood my comments with your ridiculous arguments for Linux, believe me, I’ve heard them all before. And I will turn off commenting if this becomes an issue. (And, if you are down-right rude to me, I will delete your comments. This is my house, play nice or go home!)
Let me just start by saying I’ve got nothing against Linux. Linux is great in the enterprise (especially on the back end). Linux may be a great operating system for computer geeks, but it is not built for the average user, no matter how much Linux advocates claim it is. Linux advocates have a real hard time separating average users from themselves and their Linux-loving friends. (I’m guessing that not too many of them have had to support users professionally.)
Here is another article trying to make a case for average people to try/use Linux. Ugh. Where to start.?
First off, yes Windows sucks. Windows is abysmal when it comes to security. So, I agree with the author there. Linux is by far a better operating system. But, that doesn’t mean Linux is a great replacement for Windows on the desktop, especially for "average" people.
Okay, let’s move on to debunking this B.S., shall we?
The article tries to make the claim that the many, many choices offered by Linux is a plus.
Since not everyone has the same idea of a good system, there are a few hundred distros out there, each having its niche–though often many distros share a niche.
Again, this is great for geeks, but not so much for the average person. I mean, people complain at how many versions of Vista there are! Are you really going to turn around and claim that "a few hundred distros" is a good thing for the average person? Seriously? For people who don’t know anything about computers, it’s just confusing and daunting. If Linux wants to be taken seriously as a desktop operating system, the choices need to be more limiting. The average user is not going to want to figure out which one, of "a few hundred distros", is going to be right for them.
The author tries to build reasons why the average person should try Linux, giving her own reason as an example:
For me, the main reason to switch was to try something new. I wanted to know what else was out there besides Windows
That’s great, for you. Geeks like to try new things, the average user does not. Again, you’re confusing yourself with a typical user. NOTE TO ALL LINUX ADVOCATES: YOU ARE NOT A TYPICAL USER!
Next up, "it’s free". Well, yes, it is. And that’s great. But that also means that it comes with no support. Again, this is fine for all of the people out there advocating Linux, but not for typical users. If you want to set up your friends and family on Linux, that’s great. They have you call when they need help, and I know that you’re happy to help them (just like I’m happy to help the people I’ve gotten to switch to OSX). But, the average person does not have you to help them.
And don’t get started on that whole "there’s tons of Linux forums on the ‘net that people can get help from" argument. That’s just B.S., plain and simple. Sure, there are help forums out there, but guess what, they’re filled with Linux geeks. First off, few "average" computer users are going to be able to find these forums in the first place, but if they do, the "help" they get will be anything but helpful. While you all may love to set up Linux for your friends and families, and support them, there’s nothing you hate more than a newb coming into your forums and asking stupid questions. The answers these people get will mostly likely be over their heads, or the person answering will assume that the user knows more than they do (since they are using Linux after all), or will be downright condescending.
The next argument is "You’re Free". The argument here being, basically, that since it’s Open Source you’re free to do whatever you want to it. Sure. Do I even need to address this as it relates to the average person? Just because Linux geeks can go in and tinker with it does not mean that the average user is going to be able to. But, wait! The author says:
Even if you can’t code, if there’s something you want changed, there’s probably a 12 year old down the street who could make the changes for you.
Again, I’ve gotta go with sure there is. If you want to be that person for your friends and family, that’s great. It does not mean that this applies to the average user.
The next argument: "It’s Secure". Okay, I’ve got no problems here with this one. Linux is more secure than Windows. However, it’s not any more secure than OS X. (And, honestly, a properly configured Windows box behind a firewall is more than secure enough.)
Last up, "It’s Easy". Alright, here’s where we really get into the real B.S. Linux is not easy, not by a long shot. It may seem easy for the Linux advocates out there, but (and how many times do I have to say this) that doesn’t apply to the average user. Again, if you want to set up your friends and family on Linux so that they have a nice, functional system, and then support them and answer their questions, that’s just fine. But, do not expect the average person to be able to do this on their own.
My mom’s been using Linux ... since Thanksgiving 2006. I set it up for her, showed her where Firefox was, told her she could find whatever she needs in the Applications Menu,… By New Year, she was bragging to her friends about how much faster and easier this Linux thing was than Windows. Wow. And they said only a geek could figure out Linux.
"I set it up for her...", followed by "And they said only a geek could figure out Linux." Wow. Just, wow! Do you not see the contradiction in these two statements? Really? I’ve got news for you: your mom didn’t "figure out Linux" - you did. You set it up for her and the showed her how to use it.
What happens when your mom wants to load pictures from her new digital camera to the computer? Does she figure that out, or call you? What happens when she buys a new printer? Does she set that up herself, or call you?
This is really where we get into the meat of Linux not being ready for the desktop for average users. Most average users can do these things in Windows, and certainly in OS X. But Linux? No freakin’ way.
I am far beyond what you would consider an "average user". I’ve been working with computers for nearly 20 years (not counting the Coleco Adam that I had as a kid, which I used for programming in Basic and Logo). I’ve worked with PCs when Windows was really just an GUI app running in DOS, and not an actual OS unto itself. I’ve had to set the IRQs and memory addresses on NICs using jumpers, and then manually configuring the driver with those settings, and then wash/rinse/repeat to find a combination that actually worked. I’ve worked with Novell (since 3.11), nearly every version of Windows, and Macintosh dating back to System 7 (and been certified in several versions of all of those systems). I am a professional computer support engineer.
I mention this all because, while I have nothing against Linux, as a seasoned computer tech (and not an average user) I find Linux to be too much work to bother with. The last time I tried Linux (Fedora 5, for those of you who care), I spent all weekend trying to get the wireless adapter to work. All weekend! The adapter that was in the laptop I was doing this on didn’t have Linux drivers - not in the distro, and not available anywhere else. After wading through all of the ever-so-helpful Fedora and Linux forums, I finally found a way (which was incredibly kludgy, btw) to force Linux to use the Windows drivers. Even having the answer, to actually do this was by no means an easy task. Again, I wasted an entire weekend doing this. And even when it did "work", the system would lock up if encryption was enabled. It connected great if I left the wireless router wide open, but any WEP or WPA, and BAM!, the system would completely freeze (hard re-boot freeze we’re talkin’ here) when it tried to connect. (So much for Linux being "secure" in this case.)
It’s only slightly ironic that the first time I tried Linux (probably about 10 years ago) I couldn’t get the ethernet card working, and just gave up.
I just want to sum all of this up with a point that I think I’ve already made more than a few times in this needlessly long rant, and that is this: Just because Linux is better than Windows for you, that does not make it better for the average person. And, if you really want to get people off Windows (as well you should), might I suggest OS X? Again, just because OS X isn’t right for you, that doesn’t mean it’s not the right choice for average users coming from Windows.
Linux is a great OS, and hopefully one day it will be ready for the desktop (which, by the way, won’t happen until there’s only one desktop distro of Linux). Until then, stop telling people that Linux is a great choice for them, because for the vast majority of people, it simply isn’t.