Hi, my name is Mike and I have a prejudice against media innovation...and so do you! This is the conclusion I reached after recently finally acknowledging the strengths of the three file format underdogs, PNG, OGG and MKV.
Well, all you open source zealots can scream all you want about how you've been using these file formats for years, but the fact stands: neither one of these file formats has reached ubiquitous use. PNG doesn't work properly in IE, you rarely see external devices allowing OGG playback (in comparison to MP3/WMA/AAC support) and up until this week I haven't even heard of MKV.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against having personal favourites - after all, it's what does the job that you remember and respect; however, there comes a time when a blind and unswerving dedication to a popular opinion can make or break (or at the very least, hold back indefinitely) a technology. And here the open source zealots can sympathize, since the majority of the world runs some flavour of Windows, a minority (that now likes to pretend to be 1337 *nix geeks) runs OSX and only CS majors, *nix gurus and system administrator run a flavour of *nix.
I don't care what hundredth of a percent Firefox gained in the browser share last week; I don't care that some obscure government switched all their computers to Linux. Why? Because the open source OS camp is all talk and no action. To this day there is not a single variety of Linux that can run how I want, and what I want without me having to buy one metric tonne of books and a Computer Science degree. The OS people must learn an important lesson from their PNG, OGG and MKV friends: think small, think effective, think - dazzle.
If the human factor persists, then they, too, must play within the capitalist death machine; they must make an OS I can set and forget; they must not make me relearn all my skills from scratch, and, above all, they must make me love their product for its tremendous efficiency. Yes, this is treading a thin line, but this is how things are done in the real world. PNG dazzled me with its lossless compressibility and trransparency; OGG had me with its extended tags and improved sound quality; and while still being convinced that XviD is inferior to DivX, I now am free to acknowledge that the MKV video wrapper (which allows me to have multiple, switchable, soft subtitles and audio tracks, amongst a ton of other things), is far superior to AVI, MOV or RM(VB). Your move, Linux.
Comparing OSs to media formats is not really fair, because the cost of switching is different. You don't have to dump all of your GIFs before you can start using PNGs. Switching OSs, on the other hand, requires changing nearly all of your software.
You know what else sucks? Spending $45.00 on one of your favourite albums only to discover that Super Audio Compact Disc does not describe the quality of the production. Rather, it itells me that this CD-shaped disc requires its very own player (which, in turn, requires it's own specialized speakers/amp, etc). Fuuuuck.
So what's your point, Anonymous? Because an OS is so much more sophisticated than a multimedia standard it requires a 100% user commitment and that one should forgive overspecialized systems design and put up with whatever frivolity the OS maker goes for? What I'm talking about here is not a mere type of product, I'm talking about a marketing ideology of user-friendly operation and quick learning curves that are required if one is to play in the free market.
Be it Linux (which is effectively completely useless to me), or Longhorn (where, no doubt, new, proprietary technologies will counterbalance technological innovation) - professionals in the IT industry need to start to be accountable to the "middle user". Make a system that an idiot can use and only idiots will use it. Same goes for kung-fu IT guru platforms. What we need is a golden mean and the industry just doesn't get it.
Then again, OSX was a departure from this philosophy, as was WinXP Home; however, WinXP Pro showed the world that a modern, "middle user" system was possible. Despite any of my other objections, Longhorn can only be an improvement on that.
As for your woes, Patrick, I can sympathize. But that's proprietary technology for you. No ubiquity, no playback.
Mike, I agree with you 100%. These are fucked up filename types that will take some time to integrate into functionality. Actually, my main concern is the naming of these filenames. I mean, PNG, what the fuck? What am I playing fucking ping pong or something? And OGG! What the fuck, OGG?!? Sounds like the stereotypical name of a martian from the 50's or something. And MKV sounds communist like the DPRK. The Marxist Killer Vvvv... uh... vv... Vacuums... yeah. Marxist Killer Vacuums. I mean come on! I propose that the following formats be make a standard: (1) PXL (Paxl File Format) for Paxl documents. (2) GYP (Gyp File Format) for any file that comes from Microsoft which contains pricing information about its products. Then, of course you could have (3) MAN (Masculine Androgyn Now)... a file for men only. (4) SAD (In programs dealing with concepts of Sadism). (5) MOO (Merry Ovulation Operation). (6) XXX (porno graphics files that only open if there's porno in them). Or just standard porno conventional thing that opens in internet explorer if you're like 18 or over. (7) 911 (Emergency files). (8) 411 (Information files) (9) 611 (Telephone Repair files). (10) 711 (Convenience store files).
Ah, I see you're resorting to my kind of argumentation. I never said I hated these file formats. I adore them now; it's just they're not much use if not everyone uses them.
As for your proposed filenames, you're absolutely right. I think it would be much more efficient to categorize filetypes by their content, rather than by the program that opens them; things would be much more standardized and integrated then and we wouldn't have a thousand filetypes for each of which we need a separate program.
Both Windows and Mac OS have attempted this, to an extent, but demanding that the industry limit its variety of software applications would go against the entire idea of diversified capitalist markets.
I'm not proposing a general concept here, though, I'm proposing these filenames specifically. I am not proposing any content based shit. I am suggesting that, for instance, graphics containing porno files should be saved in the format XXX and that only a porno viewer can open them in IE for example.
I know, I am. I was inspired by your idea and then de-inspired by reality. At any rate, XXX would be too obvious, and you're just complicating things anyways. Why do you need an additional porno viewer in IE if IE already opens it?! Would the viewer be a plugin of some kind or what?
See, this is why they don't let people like you and I anywhere near high tech corporations. I would create insane file encoding schemes and you would integrate porno viewers into every single application. Come to think of it (pun not intended), Word could use a porno viewer, for those fourteen-hour essay all-nighters.
YOU SON OF A BITCH! WHEN YOU PRESS ESCAPE, THE FUCKING ENTIRE THING THAT YOU WROTE DELETES. I just wrote some shit. Anyway, it wouldn't be a plugin. It would come with IE. If "safe parental crap" mode is off, it'll load the XXX as usual. If parental shit is on, it'll load the JPG with the same name, and won't load the XXX File. So if your porn site has a VAGINA.XXX file and a VAGINA.JPG in the same directory, it'll load the JPG, but the XXX in normal cases. Or better yet! YES! THIS IS THE BEST IDEA! LOOK: It's an XXX file that stores two images. In IE, when parental mode is off, the XXX file will show the porno image, but when it's on, it'll show the non-porno image.
>technological innovation) - professionals in the IT industry need
>to start to be accountable to the "middle user".
Oh great! More of your communist "everything for the working class" rhetoric. Why don't you just go and write the Microsoft Manifesto.
Hey, you fucker, I don't control the way MIcroshaft coded their text boxes! Why don't you sit down and have a nice, tall glass of CHILL THE FUCK OUT!
At any rate, the two-image idea is just plain stupid. However, I do like your parental control idea (in principle, I hate censorship of any kind): when the restriction is on, no pr0n, but when the restriction is off, everything is pr0n! IE would have to use Google Image Search to find a pr0n image to replace all other normal images. Surfing the web would be a blast (pun not intended).
As for you being stupid, have you not even read my write-up? By "middle user" I mean someone who is neither a *nix guru nor a total n00b, users like you and me. Wouldn't you want an OS to be comfortable to use?
One can also use "undo" command to restore whatever "escape" deleted:)
>Hey, you fucker, I don't control the way MIcroshaft coded their
>text boxes! Why don't you sit down and have a nice, tall glass of
>CHILL THE FUCK OUT!
AHAHAH! You stupid plagarist! You stole that from Happy Gilmore. I caught you red handed with your pants down.
>Wouldn't you want an OS to be comfortable to use?
Well yeah. Just as long as I don't have to use a sickle to chop wood or anything.
Roman! What's up, man? Yeah! In your face, Paul!
>One can also use "undo" command to restore
>whatever "escape" deleted:)
Yeah, that's true! But you have to be smart to remember something like that during such an emergency. It's better to yell at Mike even though this is not his problem or fault to being with.
In your face. Everyone seems to be online. You should convert this into a chat room.
What the fuck, man. I post something and then you go and post something one minute earlier. Why don't you stop fucking with the time-space continuum. I've gotta go and change that shit around or something now. a) I don't remember shit about Happy Mofran, I saw it once and it was on the plane, so fuck off; b) your mother is a sickle and your dad is a hammer; c) no more unnecessary line breaks, OK? d) there will be no chatrooms.
a) Kiss my ass, b) Kiss my ass, c) Fuck you!, and d) Kiss my ass again. ANTI-LINE BREAKER COMMUNIST ANTI-CHATROOMON!!!! What is wrong with the space time contiuum anyway? Sounds fine to me. You and your manual changing.
Hey, bitch, I'm laying down the law in these parts of the Internet. What's wrong is that you keep posting before I posted, though I posted after you posted. The sequence of posts doesn't make any sense!
No, actually, I will act as witness to the fact that it does make sense. I actually did post after you and you posted after me. I have been watching this thread for minutes now, and in all seriousness, there seems nothing wrong with the ordering.
Then why the fuck did I reply to Roman's comment after your comment and not directly after? When I was posting I wasn't even aware of your comment's existence; you undercut me there. And though I said "in your face," it was meant for the comment previous to the one you have so cleverly inserted between mine and Roman's. AHHH, you fucker. You specifically made it ambiguous, so there'd be an implied disorder, but to the untrained eye, it would all look fine...tricky bastard.
Actually, there was no intention of fraudulence. But I did technically beat you to it. If it was the other way around, you would have inserted your message before my message thus throwing ME off. So I don't get what you're trying to correct here. Either way, someone get's jolted down. But because I clicked the button before you, it would be insane to change it because that would imply that you clicked the button before me. And therein lies the problem.
Yes, that's what I meant. I can't even do anything to you based on this circumstancial evidence.
I'm a sneaky bastard, aren't I?
Yes, but minus the sneaky part.
yes
DAMMIT! I didn't beat you to it again. I have to be quicker next time.
I changed my method now.
Nah, I see your methods are the same. You and your methodology.
Shut up! Shut it up!