I used to have a career in "business" (retail management, actually, but that's close enough), and in business, I was bombarded on a regular basis by stats and studies estimating that written communication was only about 20% as expressive as in-person communication. Now, if you haven't encountered this claim before, you might regard it as preposterous. But if you stop to think about it, consider just all the different ways we express ourselves that is beyond just the words themselves (the problem is caused by words having multiple definitions and all of those definitions rarely being sufficient to accurately describe your thoughts). So we use additional means of communication to clarify what it is that we are trying to express. And as we get farther removed from in-person communication, the availability of non-verbal (and extra-verbal, if such a term exists?) means of communication diminishes. For example:
•Your tone of voice, very important in communicating humor, anger, etc., is an available communication device in in-person, video, and voice-only communication, but is completely lost in written communication.
•Your facial expression, also important for the above reasons, is available in in-person and video communication but is lost in voice-only and written communication.
•Your body language, like slouching, leaning back, arms akimbo, etc., is fully apparent in in-person communication, is of diminished effectiveness in video communication, and like facial expression is non-existent in the other two.
•And there's even subtler stuff, like, for example, how close you are standing to someone - very important in in-person communication, but completely lost even in video communication.
So, if you agree with the above, you'll reach the conclusion that if you want to communicate something, the "best" (by that I mean: most efficient and accurate) way to do so would be face-to-face, and the worst way is with written communication (ok, there's worse ways to communicate than with words, but y'all get my drift).
Emoticons came about because enough users of early electronic communication media agreed that the loss of non-verbal emotional expression was causing too much confusion in this kind of communication. This is how the concept first spread. Later, maybe people picked up and made it even more popular because they thought it was cute, or whatever, but that's later. The root cause, the reason why we have emoticons, is because written communication sucks a little less with them than without them.
So you might not like emoticons. I personally hate them. I think graphical smilies are goofy, and even the special character combo ones remind of a kid doodling in the margins of his / her notebook. But I can't deny that there are times when a smiley is far more effective at expressing something than an entire paragraph of text might be.
Saying that smilies don't belong on this forum is like saying that humor doesn't belong on this forum, and that every conversation must be undertaken in the gravest of tones and using only the driest and most precise language.
You can't really count visitors by ip address either tho because NAT is pretty much ubiquitous.
EDIT: The only possible way I can see how to count unique visitors is by requiring some kind of user interaction.
Last edited by duby229; 05-10-2013 at 06:18 PM.
That sure looks defensive to me.
Upstart was based on technical merit, it just so happens that they would rather use it since they've put R&D and money into it, which they haven't with systemd, and they still achieve a very similar end result. In fact, Chrome OS and OpenWebOS both use Upstart over systemd.For now they do. But notice the large number of Ubuntu-exclusive programs that they use. And that's not because of technical merits (otherwise they would have been adopted by others). So Ubuntu is just making itself way more distant from what is the norm in the other distributions. It's becoming an outlier, it's not representative of GNU/Linux as a whole. That's what I don't like - it is still true that Ubuntu is the most popular distribution, and thus the first distribution new users are likely to look at, and if they see an outlier instead of something close to the average, they won't know what GNU/Linux actually is.
And all of these projects are open source, any Linux distro can impliment them.
This doesn't make Ubuntu magically outside the GNU/Linux sphere.
Last edited by intellivision; 05-10-2013 at 06:51 PM.
So people aren't that wrong when they compare Canonical with Apple and/or Ubuntu with Android. It isn't that bad right now, but with small steps Canonical seems to walk to it.
Last edited by TAXI; 05-10-2013 at 08:29 PM.
Android is to linux what iOS is to *BSD, so to say linux has captured the phone market you might as well say linux & unix have captured 90% of the phone market between them.
I am not sure why Ubuntu felt the need to reinvent everything, what with Tizen, Maemo (either the original GTK one or the QT one), firefox OS, jolla, we definitely didn't need yet another mobile OS. It requires a huge amount of effort to produce a mobile device with a well integrated experience - Nokia didn't fully succeed with the n900 even after several years of effort.
I have a full arm linux install on my Galaxy Note2; I simply mount and chroot into it. I can fire up sshd and ssh in to the phone if I want. I can run vncserver, and then use vnc client in android for super-nerd mode.
Or, use USB host with a keyboard, MHL with external display. However, for the majority of activities, android is fine!
with a fairly bloated KDE desktop install being 8G+ you're going to need a significant amount of storage just for that. Add in a full complement of development tools, kernel source build, QT build environment, you're getting into 64GB territory - in a phone!