Slashdot Log In
Interview: Steve Wozniak Unbound
from the don't-hurt-your-back-bowing dept.
1) LinuxPPC?
by UM_Maverick
What's your take on the use of LinuxPPC vs. the MacOS? Many people say that Mac hardware is (and always has been) better than x86, but it's been held back by the OS. Do you think that LinuxPPC can change that?
Woz:
Many of the hardware advantages that Apple has is due to it's being more tightly controlled by Apple and in it's being more tightly integrated with the software. That allows Apple to make hardware changes and decisions that are more reliable than in the Wintel world. This has nothing to do with Linux and everything to do with MacOS. The basic plumbing is superior to Intel hardware in some ways (firewire on the motherboard for example) and a bit lacking in others (3D rendering hardware) but the basic performance advantage goes to the RISC architecture of the PowerPC processor. Intel's response to this is that even if RISC is 40% faster, that only amounts to a few months lead, according to Moore's Law.
If you consider attractiveness and other external qualities, you can't find any hardware that comes close to Apple's. That's because even companies like Sony, that truly care about the user experience, can't do much about the internal hardware (buying it from Intel like every other manufacturer). Also, companies like Sony are in competition with many very cutrate prices in a commodity market. The internal hardware supplier can't do much about the external quality either.
LinuxPPC certainly has the capability of improving the hardware efficiency and preventing some very bad things from happening and allowing software to behave in more expectable ways. It's hard to say that a great deal of the buyers are much influenced by these things or we wouldn't have so much successful crap around. The Macintosh market would probably be prime and ready for LinuxPPC but it probably needs more ease of setup. Also, other UNIX variants (Like Mach Ten) are available already and only marginally used by Macintosh owners. The performance of MacOS X Server is already quite incredible, and the [largely] Open Source MacOS X Client is coming in the summer.
2) Open-source and free software questions
by papo
Do you think open-source and free software is really a revolution or only a hype? How do you think things will become in the software industry in the future with open-source variable inserted in their middle? And do you think this model could lead to a more competitive and less monopolistic market?
Woz:
I definitely think that open-source is a revolution and not hype. I could have chosen to say that it's both.
There have always been people that believed strongly in free software. They are mostly people that have developed something rather good and even sellable, but small and of limited market potential. I support these people. It's little known, but the schematics of the Apple I were actually handed out at the Homebrew Computer Club before we started Apple.
But there are so many large bucks available just to companies that get people using their software because software is like a portal. It's hard to have a clear advantage in getting software widely accepted just because it's free. That's because Microsoft can distribute a lot of good software, like browsers and email clients, for free, making money in less direct ways. The main attraction to open source software may not be it's advantages (price, functionality) but the fact that some people don't want to support the big successful proprietary companies. There's good reason for fear of monopoly stagnation too. Look at ATT. When I was in school there was only one phone in one color. You couldn't buy an answering machine or any of the neat phone stuff that abounds today. ATT was the only phone company and didn't want any change to their guaranteed business due to competition.
3)Ease of Use vs Level of Control
by _J_
Apple has long been noted for having the most (or among the most) user friendly stuff around. What do you think of the trade off between ease of use and level of control? Is there a trade off?
Woz:
In a lot of cases there is a trade off here. In the case of applications, Apple primarily appeals to a market that wants things made easy. That means hiding functionality and control. It bothers people like ourselves. But Apple could say that programmers have as much control as they want, but that certainly isn't true of its hardware. The rule is "keep out" and "don't do it unless you are an expert." You won't find much at all in the way that individual techies can design and use their own boards with a Macintosh, the sort of thing that I always wanted to do.
Then again, Apple is the leader (for decades) in providing user interfaces and hardware interfaces that are easy, like plug and play (and install and pray) yet which can do as much anyway. This is the hardest thing to do in software and hardware and only the greatest artists can do it. It takes a mind that keeps searching for a better way that's unknown, and not stopping at the first few working results.
4) Did/do average people need a computer?
by Otter
In the days of the Apple ][, did you believe the average American household needed a personal computer? I remember being told that computers could balance your checkbook, keep your schedule and store your recipes and wondering if that was a cost-effective solution for people, or just an expensive, if fascinating toy. It's my impression that it's only now with consumer Internet access that a home computer provides value for most people.
What do you think?
Woz:
Even as a toy, I believed that every home needed a computer. This was even though I thought the computer would remain expensive and small, sans Moore's law. Also I believed it before the first killer app, Visicalc. I believed that people would become programmers and not need companies as much. You can see how laughable that was.
Although I never talked to Steve Jobs directly on this issue, I never heard him predict outright some things that are very obvious today in the internet days. But he was more forward looking and interested in making computers palatable for people and finding ways that computers could help them, not as computers but as tools to balance checkbooks, etc. The Apple ][ was just a start in gaining acceptance for computers in the home.
In Junior High School I assumed that transistors were being developed so that people could use them in transistor radios. But my father, who worked at Lockheed, corrected my by saying that they, and the early chips, were designed only for the military, and the consumer market just fell out. This bothered me. I was a person after all. I wanted consumer products to drive the chip market. Around 1969, when I could design any minicomputer made, I knew that I wanted one for myself. I told my father that someday I'd buy a 4K Nova computer and he said that it cost as much as a small house (in those days). I said I'd live in an apartment then.
By the way, the Data General brochures that I ordered came with one of two posters. One showed a commercial looking rack mounted computer. But the other showed a Nova in a sculpted shape on a glass table. It made a huge impression on me that even commercial looking computers with dozens of techie switches and lights, could go into a home. At least one other person believed this, since Data General had the poster.
Well, when we had the Homebrew Computer Club, we all talked of this revolution in the sense that it was empowering people without the companies owning the computers. A lot of people were planning to buy an Altair kit computer but a few started designing ones. The designs were a mixture of surplus store hobbiest and putting microprocessor into the existing commercial looking boxes, doing the same things, expecting the same plug in boards to do anything useful. I was in a perfect position to conceive of the computer in a different way, a personal (not commercial) way. First, I believed only in designing products for the average person. That's the exact phrase I always used. it was hard to stick to this thinking when everyone else, in 1975, was going a different way. I thought out what I wanted to do with my own computer and went for it.
I had an advantage in being good at reducing chips. I could conceive of an entire finished usable computer and design it in few enough chips to be practical. My philosophy of fewer chips led me to dynamic RAMs when all the other hobby computers were going with static RAMs. It just took a bit more design work.
But the biggest advantage of all was that I worked in Hewlett Packard's calculator division. Our calculators were basically computers, yet they were totally human and usable by normal people. They didn't have binary switches to toggle and boot up procedures from a teletype. The had a small amount of code in ROMS (under 1K 10-bit words in the HP 35) and a human keyboard. The ROM program merely watched the keys and responded to whatever key was depressed. So it was quite obvious for me to think of the keyboard and some ROM as integral parts of the computer. From there it's easy to see it in normal people's hands, whereas all the other commercial looking machines had no chance except in the hands of techies.
5) What would an Apple II 2000 look like?
by Croaker
The Apple II was the original "geek dream machine." I mean, the Apple ][+ we got back in 1982 or so came with schematics! Talk about an open system!
Pretend that Apple (or some other company) came to you and asked you to design a PC that would "fill the shoes" of the Apple II line. What do you think you'd put in it?
From reading your website, I know you're pretty pro-Macintosh... is that the ultimate in what you'd want to see in a personal computer, or would you do some things differently? Where, do you think, that current PC's (not meaning just WinTel machines) reflect the philosophy of the Apple II, and what do you think they have missed?
Woz:
First, my thoughts on what a modern computer would be can't be superior to anyone else's. But, in the light of the Apple ][, I'd choose the best processor that I could in terms of package size, performance, integrated I/O, number of leads, etc. I'd prefer unseen advantages under the hood, like RISC architecture. I'd design a board with very few chips that did a lot. The display would clearly be VGA and only standard ports would make sense. This is different than with the Apple ][. But the computer would have very few chips and would have high level languages and low level debugging and coding support too. I would try to offer high level GUI ability in the high level language. The schematics and all the code would come with the machine and would be open source (unless someone like Steve Jobs convinced me to sell it). I would treat the most important aspect of this machine as it's being an example to others of ways to design and code. There are a lot of people that want to learn in this way, on their own. Sometimes it's their desire, sometimes they can't find other sources easily. I'd also try to write some articles with small examples for others to learn from.
6) Teaching the children
by tweek
Do you feel that operating systems such as Linux/*BSD are a viable option for teaching those children who have no previous experience with a computer? Certainly the cost factor would be a great motivation for choosing these over other operating systems. It seems to me that it is more difficult to train those who are set in one GUI than those who have no previous experience whatsoever. I really have an interest in this kind of community service and felt that someone like you with experience (and albeit alot more money ;) could provide some insight and advice.
Woz: I think that the greatest need of children is to use computers to help do their homework and to make it look good. They are basically using apps and not an OS.
I personally think that our schools should change and teach real computer science from 5th grade on. You don't need higher level math or calculus or biology to start learning logic design. In this regard, Linux or BSD or even other UNIX variants, or simpler microprocessor Operating Systems, would be required in order to have a greater understanding of the machine and it's innards.
7) the Steves
by Skyshadow
What advice can you give the new innovators? As someone who would like to start a company, I can't help but notice that most truly innovative companies tend to boom then bust, either fading slowly into obscurity or being assimilated by some larger company.
Do you have any ideas for avoiding this fate? Is the only alternative to make some money and become a predatory company yourself? Or, alternatively, is this the eventual unavoidable fate of all idea-driven companies (Netscape, SGI, Apple, etc)? Or, to sum up the question: Can an Apple ever defeat a Microsoft?
Woz:
Apple made too many marketing mistakes early on. These were hard to see because we were extremely successful anyway. But we really went from first to second in the early 80's. It wasn't to Microsoft, it was to IBM PC's (and all the clones). Only recently did the world find out that Microsoft was a sleeper and was really in first place. Software made the bigger difference in computers and was what really changed the world more than hardware.
As a computer supplier, Apple is still huge. Our recent model computers still have the greatest market share of any manufacturer. So we must be doing something right. Apple is the only manufacture that is still in control of its future and changing computers and advancing the world and leaving the past behind. Every other one is a slave to Intel and Microsoft and competitive prices that don't allow for much R&D. They are the ones that have been assimilated. I'd rather be Apple. I believe that Apple's turn around is just starting. But it's not a matter of 'defeating' Microsoft. It's only a matter of building the best stuff we can. If Microsoft creates such good things they should be successful too. But there's always the luck of the right approach, even though no successful company will admit it.
8) Have you played with the BeOS?
by RavinDave
Have you ever had a chance to play around with the Be operating system? Since its developers were part of the Apple culture, I thought I might find a blurb or two on your page. What sort of advice would you offer Gassee? Is the proprietary aspect an albatross (should they opensource the OS and concentrate on apps)? Are they trying to get into the game too late?
Woz:
I have one and always wanted to play with it but just don't have the time yet. I like interesting people that can make your work fun, and Jean Louis is like that. But he had the same proprietary thinking that almost all key Apple execs shared, including the avoidance of licensing the software. BeOS would need something very special to rise above the noise, with Linux and open-source being so popular.
9) A question
by jd
Once upon a time, garage developers were considered the mainstay of the computer industry. Later, either you or S. Jobs said that the days of garage developers was over, forever. Later still, the Open Source model rewoke the Garage Developer philosophy with a jolt.(Or a Mountain Dew, depending on taste.)
Today, do you feel that garage development still has a place in Computing? And, if so, would it be in software, hardware or both?
Woz:
There were a couple of factors that helped a garage startup succeed in the late 70's. Before that time, computers were physically quite large and expensive and were developed by large teams. Now computer projects, even games, are worth so much $ that they are developed by large teams. Around 1975 and 1975 there was a window in which a person or two could develop a good complete computer.
Also, in the early days the computers weren't really personal computers, they were hobby computer kits. You would typically build them yourself and had to operate them at the binary switch level. It was more like ham radio than today's computers. Many big computer companies predicted no future for this hobby market. That's because all their market research was among existing computer customers, those buying the big $M machines. Those customers had no need for a 4K machine that could only run BASIC. But the market research didn't touch on non-computer users like dentists and schoolteachers and kids. So they missed the boat. Apple tried to rise above the hobby type machine and approach homes with a 'personal' computer. Only then did analysts and computer companies start to see things in a different light.
Today, look how many successful startups there are. These often come from a couple of young people with good ideas and not a huge amount of money. I'm on the Board of one such company now. So it must be happening all over the place, just one step above a garage. It's hard to happen in the garage, because the Apple story is not forgotten. A lot of investors missed out and want to jump at anything having to do with computers that looks like it might succeed. So a couple of people like myself and Steve Jobs would be consumed very quickly today, unless we almost deliberately remained hidden or found a perfect investor like Mike Markkula.
Now that I think about it, we had to grow out of the garage to build more than a couple of hundred computers. So today, many that get funded for a startup really developed something in their homes, in their garages to speak, anyway.
10) Idealism today
by Ledge Kindred
You seem to be one of the most "purely" idealistic people in this industry. (i.e. RMS is idealistic in the sense he wants to push GNU, you are idealistic in that you just want to help kids get a leg up and generally be An All-Around Good Guy.)
Do you ever look at the industry and get depressed over what's it's become with companies with virtually no product and running deep in the red but who have "e-" or "dot-com" in their names pulling off ridiculously huge IPOs, companies patenting obviously unpatentable concepts and ideas apparently for the express purpose of suing the pants off of competitors instead of competing with the quality of their products, companies like Microsoft going beyond the boundaries of the law and way, way beyond the boundaries of ethical behaviour to get a step up on the competition, the industry lobbying government to pass laws that would create an entirely unregulated industry, including things like legislation that would legally disavow software companies of any responsibility for creating shoddy products that don't even do what the box says they will do, employees floating with a company just long enough to vest and then bailing out without a backwards glance so they can go to The Next Big IPO, etc, etc, etc.
What do you look at in this industry to remind yourself that computers and the computer industry can actually help make the world a better place?
Woz:
That's a lot of questions. I don't get depressed at all over anything. I do happen to think that companies that look like the big dot-coms of the future deserve their successful IPO's. I guess that they sort of sell out early to finance their guaranteed dominance. Investors take advantage of this too, knowing that the IPO financing will guarantee that these startups don't lose their early lead. Many see this as a situation where the great wealth being made is being lost somewhere else but I don't. I see it as truly new wealth that's being created due mainly to an accelerated economic system. Regardless, this wealth gets trickled down to all of us to some extent. Eventually, it all gets distributed. As the wealthy approach death, estate taxes will be due. Any large amounts of funds have to be transferred into foundations whose purpose is to distribute them to tax free organizations. Otherwise the government gets half the money. It's just the only efficient way to go. It's in the tax laws.
Some patents are for truly clever things but some are for simple things that every single person would think of if there was a need for it. Wealthy companies patent such things early, when these things are not yet viable, when they are too expensive to market. For example, I used a chip in the Apple ][ called a character generator to convert characters to dots that could be displayed on a CRT or TV. It turned out that RCA had patented it back when almost nobody could have afforded to put characters on a CRT. Such a simple concept does not help us respect the patent system.
I truly wish that companies would be liable to consumers for products that don't do what the consumer reasonably expected, or that don't include the sort of service that the consumers reasonable expected. I'd like more truth in advertising. I'd like speedy remedies for people that are injured. We need regulation in a lot of technological industries, including cellular phones. Not in order to keep prices low, but to assure that powerless people have recourse and can get things corrected. Most of all, companies should be required to give straight answers. Too many ISP's and phone companies and computer companies and software companies and hardware companies dodge helping in order to save costs. Only a few are very good, and they don't always remain that way. I'd much rather that another person be honest with me than that they sell me something at a good price. This industry will provide service as cheaply as possible due to competitive factors that can only be overcome by regulation.
11) The Future of Education
by moonboy
From what I've read, you are very involved with children and their education and technology seems to play a major role in the basis of that education. Personally, I think that next to being loved adaquately, education is the most important factor in a developing child's life. In America we seem to take education for granted and are very far behind other countries in regard to the quality of the education that our children receive. Technology in general and more specifically, computers and the Internet, are fantastic tools with a great potential for drastically improving education.
My question: How do you see education making better use of technology and technology making education better?
Woz:
Personal love is certainly the most important thing. To some extent, a teacher offers this, but only to each student 1/30 of the time. 30 computers could become like 30 teachers, but they have to become as personal as possible. They need realistic graphics like games have. They need realistic sounds. They should be voice operated, especially since very early elementary students can't type well. Every time a computer program gets more human-like, it attracts better student attention. But the software needs to be many times as deep as it is today in terms of a personality. It needs to be more like a real person, with many ways to present the same subject, backtracking intelligently, even to the far past, following a student through years of education. The programs should tell lots of jokes as well, and play occasional games too. Today the class presentation is fixed. Each student hears the same presentation in the same time frame. Then a test is given and the varable is the grade. But with 30 teachers, the presentation can be variable, with students going at different speeds in different courses. The student can pick their grade in advance, with the grade now being fixed.
It's too hard to predict that schools will disappear as rapidly as many stores and newspapers and other things of the physical world. Schools currently serve as a parking place for the kids during the day and, even when everything is available at home on the web, parents will still want their kids in a socially healthier environment during the day.
----------
Next week: Larry Augustin and Chris DiBona of VA Linux Systems. AND, at the same time, another,very special interview guest: Leon M. Lederman, Nobel Prize Winner, internationally known specialist in high energy physics and director emeritus of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois.
Look at the curriculum... (Score:3)
And I have a degree in Computer Science.
Yes, computers are not being used properly in the schools. But it's not always the teacher's fault. If the software is not related to the curriculum that teachers are required to teach, or if there's no instructional materials for teachers to know what software relates to what topics in the state curriculum, what are teachers supposed to do? Most teachers eventually, on their own, figure out something to do with the computers, but without leadership it's being done on an inconsistent and haphazard basis.
-E
Agreed. (Score:3)
I loved to figure out how the operating systems on those machines worked. I read all of the low level stuff I could get my hands on. I learned assembly language around fourth or fifth grade. I remember writing programs on graph paper in class, hand assembling them to opcodes and running home to type them in. It was fun.
Now, computers are everywhere. Few families don't have them. But look what they do with them. Surfing the web and playing games, that's about it. I feel _sorry_ for kids these days who don't have the advantages I had of what now seems like a crappy computer. I learned logic and programming skills from those original computers and they sparked my interest. If I were a kid today and had a Wintel box, I don't know if it would have inspired me the way those machines did so long ago.
Re:Computers hurt kids, too (Score:3)
Kids have forgotten the value of a library because they can just browse the internet.
And I think that's beautiful. A library represents everything which is proprietary and wrong with the information distribution of the world. A library is a closed system where people with cards can get books which have been selected by the few to be available to the many. And the books in publication are those which have been published by those with the relatively rare capacity to publish a book. This is a self-preserving system which has no interest in bringing new, challenging ideas into the system.
The internet has no such structure. Anyone can publish anything, and be heard without the approval of a third party who has no business interfering in the affairs of readers. This directly supports people with challenging or unpopular ideas, because they can be heard, too, in this medium. Not to mention the technical benefits of the internet over a library: access from any point at any time, powerful searching technology, the practicality of information being updated in a timely fashion, and the existance of a forum for discussion and disagreement about the content. It's far more difficult to access a library from Guam at 2:00am. It's far more difficult to find a book with a [computerized] card catalog than it is to use Google [google.com]. Making comments in the margins of a book if you disagree with the author is usually frowned upon, and the opportunity for an interactive discussion is nil.
Computers Don't Belong in Schools? (Score:3)
One noted example from the book is a school district where the students loved emailing people from foreign countries, while 11 students who were going to the school district from different countries were completely ignored.
I'd recommend this book highly.
.02
Brian Seppanen
seppanen@bresnanlink.n.et
Re:Steve Wozniak cannot be stopped. (Score:3)
When we built The Woz as part of 'Project Ubergeek', we did it right. Underneath his caring exterior is a pure rubidium exoskeleton encasing the most advanced robotics that the US army has ever developed. He can take a direct hit from a nuclear warhead and still keep teaching and designing boards. He cannot and will not be stopped until we have achieved our agenda of...
Hang on, I seem to have forgotten why we did this...
It'll come to me eventually...
--Shoeboy
Re:Education tech: the problem isn't the software (Score:3)
Right now, training is the last thing that I'd want to give a teacher who has to teach kids about computers. Whenever someone's just taught something, they tend to teach it to other people the same way it was taught to them. ie; you use the same crutches (memory mneumonics, etc.) that your teacher used.
The students, on the other hand, will be more interested in endless experimentation. You'll have kids messing around in the control panel, trying to figure out how to change the colors.. you'll have others messing with the command line options on command line programs.. These are the sorts of things that kids like to do when learning something like this. And it's also the way they learn best.
So what happens when you've got a bunch of teachers, who were trained one way trying to teach a bunch of kids, who are inclined to try to learn another way? A disaster. The kids will tend to have a difficult time paying attention; they'll wander around, trying out everything in sight. What's this do? How about this? Ooo, this is neat..
It's not long before the teacher loses it.
See, training and learning are two totally different things; training is whenever you force a crutch on the student to help them speed up the learning process, at the cost of them being less intuitive with the material. Learning is whenever you attempt to fully understand the material, ("zen") at the expense of time.
That's not to say that training is bad; I'm just saying that by training the students, you're forcing them to use the same crutches that their teachers use.
Problem is, the teacher's crutches may seem especially stupid to a kid. The recycle bin in the upper left-hand corner of the screen? Why? Let's move that recycle bin to the lower right-hand corner. It's still a recycle bin, still does the same thing. But lookie, it goes here now. And if I move this over here, and this over here.. yes, now everything's perfectly organized!
What happens, though, if the teacher was using "third icon from the top left" as their mneumonic for where the recycle bin is? This is the crux of the problem, you see. The teacher was using this crutch, and the student just pulled it out from under them. Two things can happen at this point; (a) teacher berates the student for doing something they're not supposed to, because they're not using the same crutch that they are, or (b) the teacher recognizes that this is another learning opportunity, and goes with the flow.
All the teachers I've ever had, who've just gotten off of computer training, are of the (a) variety. It's very rare that you'll see one of the (b) variety. The problem is that in order for the teacher to be this openminded, they have to be able to give time to each and every one of their students. And with class sizes what they are nowadays, one on one interaction with students is definitely not high on the list of priorities for teachers.
So I guess it all comes down to this; books and teachers versus teachers and computers. Which is better? I'd say there is no better. The problem we face is the learning curve of the computer. It's a lot like the learning curve for interacting with other people; it takes a long time to figure it all out, and the rules don't always carry over from one entity to another.
You see, we could dump the requirement of using a computer onto a parent---but that's not right, because using a computer requires the use of the alphabet. But use of the alphabet is taught in school, so that has to be taught first... The problem is a chicken/egg problem, because if the child knew how to use a computer, then the task of teaching with a computer is greatly simplified.
So should the school or the parent teach the child how to use a computer? That's what I think's the real question we need to be asking.
James
Thoughts on the future. (Score:3)
If computers ever get to the point where you can learn 95% of your schoolwork from one, not just the rote work, but the creative, and the whys behind things, then it'll make schools drastically cheaper. A teacher is overwhelmed now with even ten kids to teach; they either have to teach slowly, or leave kids behind. And it's not the dumb ones who get left behind, it's the ones with the different questions. If 9/10 kids don't understand how to multiply fractions, and one kid is interested in finding the LCM in the least ammount of work, guess who's going to get the teacher's attention. Being able to just nursemaid children while the teaching is being done, at their own pace, is likely going to be a revolution. If nothing else, I think grades are going to be a thing of the past. They were useful when you needed to cluster people together with a teacher, but when their teacher is net accessible, and on any terminal in the school or at home, you'll be able to learn at your own pace, being grouped with peers for emotional reasons.
I like the idea of making companies liable for products that don't work as advertised. Not that programmers should be sued for every bug in a non-essential program, but software should do what it says on the box, much the same as you'd expect a frying pan to be watertight, or a CD to be round.
I think we need a Raplh Nader for this industry. Not some arrogrant fat-cat looking for news coverage by advocating government interference in something they don't understand, but an insider, someone who understands the industry, attempting to regulate it in ways that are good for the consumers, above all else.
Few computer programs are in mission-critical roles, like the brakes on a car, but people still need to be able to trust labels. If it says 'x', it should provide 'x', not 'x if y' or 'x maybe'.
It's good to see that Woz isn't depressed by outcome of the apple// and Apple's (in my eyes) spiral from leader to barely counting in the industry. Their success and failure was strongly tied to their policies on information as property. The Apple
I'm suprised though that Woz isn't more anti-patent, considering the Apple
It's nice to see that Woz is still where he was in the late 70s though, trying to bring computers to the people. I got into computers thanks to him, and I owe him a lot. My way of paying that back is to support all the open standards I can, GPL, Linux, etc, so that kids will always have computers as computers to tinker with, not just locked up set-top boxes.
Re:Computer Science (Score:3)
Who cares about running executables with an OS smart enough to spawn a restricted 'shell' to run the Frog-in-a-Blender of the week in? This is something that's only a problem because of the complete lack of security in Win9x and MacOS, the two most common user-level OSes.
People don't forward around warning in real life, or at least not to the same level as online, partly because they can't just hit 'cc' and select a whole list, but partly because 'real life' isn't something new and scary where they suspect nasty things. When students are raised with computer, and know what they can and can't do, this won't be a problem.
As for open software...
I got into programming because I could list the programs on my school's Apple//. It wasn't just a black box. At the time, it might as well have been, because basic looked like proverbial greek to me, but it gave me an incentive to learn. Without open source (in the form of unencrypted/uncompiled basic programs) I wouldn't have had the incentive to learn, because I wouldn't have known how easy it was/is.
If kids use Win9x/WinNT, everything is compiled and closed, from the OS to the programs. They can't examine any of it. With an open OS, GNU/Linux, or something else later, they'll have access to the source, and compilers, and all the tools it took to write the thing in the first place. And in any decent OS, you can tinker all you want without bringing it down.
Re:Education tech: the problem isn't the software (Score:3)
It is very sad to say, but too many (I'm not saying all) but too many teachers are not intelligent or ambitious people. They are afriad of learning new ideas. They are the people who get C's in high school math and science.
This is why I think that teacher's salaries should be doubled across the board. Take the money from other "programs", standardized testing, and yes, even some infrastructure. Schools don't need to buy new computers (esp. elementary schools) There are vast seas on old machines, and will be many more soon, that don't have the horses to run the latest software (esp Win2K), these can be donated to schools where the school IT man. (every school should have at least one) gets them up and working. The salary doubling part is to help make teaching a more competitive field. I'd love to teach, but I can't live like a hermit to do it. You do find exceptional people that can make the sacrifice, but they are few and far between, the majority of teachers (and this comes from my brother a HS Bio. teacher) are people who never figured out what to do, took it up "until something better comes along", or use it to complement a spouses income (i.e. just a "job", not a career). By subsidizing the teachers directly you could make it a viable career option for above-average folks and truly gifted sharers of knowledge.
The education system in this country is poor (unless you spend serious cash), but what can you expect for an industry in a capitalistic system that never generates revenue? Our normal "market" economics will NEVER right the educational system here, it must be treated as an entirely different entity. A good place to get the money would be from our prison system and a good way to do that would be to get rid of a bunch of stupid laws (possession of controlled substnaces springs instantly to mind) I'd rather live in a learning state than a police one.
/End Friday Rant.
For me, MS had little to do with it (Score:3)
Ok, going back to when I first tried Linux...
I used DOS. Windows was something that ran Windows apps. I used it only for word processing. I spent the rest of my time in DOS, learning things about it (Thank you Peter Norton, for allowing me to see deeper into my computer). I learned assembly language, first used the internet (thank you Telemate).
Back then Internet for me was ftp and telnet. I spent most of my time downloading software and mucking about with it, hoping to learn something new. I kept noticing a directory called "linux" on many ftp sites and decided to enter one. I was amazed. A whole tree of apps I never heard of, and tons of text files. I downloaded some text files and read them, finding out that the easiest way to install Linux was by using a "distribution." In the "distributions" directory there were a couple of directories, SLS and Slackware (I think there was another one as well, but I'm kind of fuzzy). Completely randomly, I went into the "SLS" directory and downloaded the installation instructions. I then downloaded boot and root disks, as well as the "A" set.
Then suddenly, I backed up everything on floppy disks and parititioned and formatted my 100MB drive. 20 MB Linux, 5 MB swap, 75 MB DOS. I didn't go to sleep that night. I installed SLS, then DOS.
I read a vi tutorial, learned bash, read all the documentation I could get my hands on, learned how to compile programs in Linux, installed Slackware, and never looked back.
It wasn't MS problems that got me into Linux, simply boredom.
I was too young to have been able to get into Apples like I see many people here have, but I think Linux provided a similar enthrallment to someone who was born a little too late.
I hope that answers your question
Re:Government Seizing Wealth !Proper (Score:3)
Anyway, estate taxes are only relevant to the wealthy - you can pass up to $675,000 tax-free. And in our system, the wealthy usually get that way through government backing (the state creates artificial entities such as corporations that concentrate wealth, and defines and enforces artificial property rights on land and (saints preserve us) ideas); so for the state to take back wealth it created for you in the first place is hardly a tragedy.
Agreed (Score:3)
Sigh..
--
Deepak Saxena
Let's Be Honest (Score:3)
1) Wozzup man !
2) Wozzie
3) Wozzinator
4) Wozster
5) Woz's Happening
etc.
Thanks for the nice interview, Woz !
The *REAL* reason Linux is popular (Score:3)
I'm now accustomed to thinking about everything like an economist, so here is my economic analysis (kinda summarizing what other posters have said).
Microsoft had a monopoly in operating systems. When you got a computer, there was DOS for "free". Of course, the OEM was paying for it, but you couldn't really tell.
The monopoly caused market failure. A competitive market would have seen many different OS manufacturers in a monopolistic competition. What monopolistic competition means is that each OS supplier tries to target a slightly different market. To some extent, this *was* true - you had MS going after the business market, Apple going after the home & publishing markets, Commodore not really going for anything, but somehow stumbling onto the desktop video, home & hacker markets.
Now, the thing is, Apple & Commodore machines were more expensive because they weren't based on "open standard" hardware. Apple kept the designs closed, and while Amiga designs were published, only Commodore could supply the Amiga chipset.
To make a long story short, there was a market failure in that no company supplied an OS as "cheap" as DOS for hackers to the "open architecture" x86 PC market.
Even if Mac was open & had a competitive hardware market, MacOS *does*not* target hackers!!!! There would be a few of us dicking around on DOS, Amigas, and, yes, I'd bet some insightful person would release a hardcore technically advanced OS for the open M68K Macintosh hardware market. (Heh but maybe it would have been "ARP"
So no, I don't think hackers would flock to Mac OS if it was open.
Making homework look good is not good enough (Score:3)
The people calling for the end of recess periods and breaks and the ones segregating kids into different special groups are completely wrong about their approach, and some don't even care.
If we separate advancement from socialization but still need to have it happen in the same place, then one or both of these have to become transparent. The people asking for uniforms, dress codes, and rules on top of rules, aren't just in denial and seriously don't get it, assuming they're not doing it on purpose as some are.
Learning should not stop period. Dividing time for learning and playing is at best masturbation, and at worst a way to keep future generation from being fully aware of their potential.
The goal of education should be to maximise potential, to teach kids individuality, to teach them not only how to fend for themselves but the value of being independent and unchained from the wolves running rampant. Most of all they should be taught how to to recognize those "wolves" and handle them with good judgment, as opposed to the uniqueness crap they sort of teach, but then penalize kids for.
The day a kid says, "I don't care about being special, consoled, comforted, but only somewhat supported and encouraged," is a day you can hope for the world to take a positive turn.
So what's this got to do with computers? Just take a look at the potential kids have when they go exploring the Net learning Java, HTML, C++, MIDI for crying out loud, poetry of all kinds and most important of all, freedom, to kids who only write papers and cut and paste pictures from a degenerate encyclopedia like Encarta which has no more content than to hype up the future which in reality is in dire straits.
The choice you have is: a kid who becomes a CEO at 17 or one who ends up flipping burgers, and if you think a college education prevents that, YOU ARE SERIOUSLY IN D-E-N-I-A-L.
Which one of those kids is more prone to pr0n breaks (pun intended)? And equally important, which one having seen pr0n can behave in a socially responsible manner, and which one will be so media addicted by Encarta, Saturday cartoons, and TGIF, that the sight of a fraction of the explicit content the other kid was exposed to would make them into serial killers?
If that destroys, maligns, or in any other way disturbs your rosy simplistic picture of the world, you're welcome. And as hard as it may be for some to accept, all the above statements are based on the same logic and are consistent.
Yet Another Computers-in-Education Thread (Score:3)
I consider myself very lucky to have gone to eleme