| Article: |
Failing Miserably, If Not Inventively | |
| Subject: | Irrelevance | |
| Date: | 2004-02-08 21:25:42 | |
| From: | mclaincausey | |
|
I have to agree that I found this article so particularly narrow and irrelevant that I couldn't read the whole thing. All that knowledge and energy, wasted on such triviality, it's baffling and almost depressing. But the article is an insight into the workings of an irregular computing mind. For example:
|
||
Showing messages 1 through 3 of 3.
-
Irrelevance
2004-02-09 19:19:11 fofer [Reply | View]
-
Relavance in irrelevance
2004-02-10 08:51:06 rufwork [Reply | View]
I believe the quote was the author's backhanded attempt to admit to a neurosis, and one that I share (though luckily not quite so encompassingly; it usually only affects me when I'm coding, not with iTunes and other daily tasks).
Though I do feel OraNet is losing a little in article quality recently, I did find this one interesting. Why does Apple break backwards compatibility so often (it's done it a few times to me developing Java)? What are the implications of a "user-friendly" *NIX? Are you really forced, as a developer, to exclude 2% of your customer base to satisfy the other 98% out of the box?
And are those 20 hours of neurosis-satisfying remedy-making really helping you in the long run every time? Isn't it time to get help? ;^)
More seriously, the easiest way to get what it sounds like he needs is to reinstall 10.2. What do you need on 10.3 that forces an upgrade, anyhow? Other than Java 1.4.2, I can't think of any dealbreaker about 10.3 from my limited box. Dual-boot sounds like the answer. Good luck with the neurosis. -
Relavance in irrelevance
2004-02-15 05:26:45 phummers [Reply | View]
Here's the dual-boot scenario that I would recommend: second system--NetBSD!
That giant sucking sound is OSX compared with any (other?) BSD--NetBSD is free, it'll run on your Mac, and like a real Un*x, is _so_much_more flexible
OSX is worth keeping around, IMO, for iTunes





Actually, by my math, a task that takes 5 minutes a day, every day, would take about 8 months until time spent totaled 20 hours. (I really don't think he's talking about a repetitive task that reoccurs every 5 minutes.)
So basically, obsessing over a "solution" to this problem, at the expense of other deadlines, wouldn't start to "pay off" until the 8th month. Even if this task occurred twice a day as the writer describes, it would take 4 months to pay off.
Is it worth it?