Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #7263 > unrolled thread

Everything is broken

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Everything is broken RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2015-04-06 21:18 +0000
    Re: Everything is broken Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-04-06 18:45 -0400
      Re: Everything is broken BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-07 22:26 +0100
        Re: Everything is broken Dario Niedermann <dnied@tiscali.it> - 2015-04-09 16:08 +0200
          Re: Everything is broken Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-04-09 10:50 -0400
            Re: Everything is broken Dario Niedermann <dnied@tiscali.it> - 2015-04-09 17:19 +0200
              Re: Everything is broken Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-04-09 11:43 -0400
          Re: Everything is broken BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-09 17:16 +0100
            Re: Everything is broken Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-04-09 12:25 -0400
              Re: Everything is broken BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-09 21:18 +0100
                Re: Everything is broken Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-04-09 16:31 -0400
                  Re: Everything is broken BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-09 22:02 +0100
                    Re: Everything is broken Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-04-09 20:56 -0400
                      Re: Everything is broken BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-10 10:50 +0100
                        Re: Everything is broken Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-04-10 09:17 -0400
                          Re: Everything is broken BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-10 15:27 +0100
                            Re: Everything is broken Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-04-10 11:04 -0400
                              Re: Everything is broken BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-10 16:35 +0100
                                Re: Everything is broken Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-04-10 13:01 -0400
                                  Re: Everything is broken BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-11 21:48 +0100
                                Re: Everything is broken Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-04-11 22:22 +0100
                              Re: Everything is broken Dario Niedermann <dnied@tiscali.it> - 2015-04-12 16:44 +0200
                                Re: Everything is broken Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-04-12 17:04 +0100
                            Re: Everything is broken Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-10 16:54 +0100
                              Re: Everything is broken BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-11 22:24 +0100
                            Re: Everything is broken Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2015-04-10 20:11 +0000
                          Re: Everything is broken Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2015-04-10 20:17 +0000
                            Re: Everything is broken Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-04-10 17:02 -0400
                            Re: Everything is broken Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-04-10 22:53 +0100
                              Re: Everything is broken Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-04-10 17:55 -0400
                                Re: Everything is broken Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-04-12 13:52 -0400
                                  Re: Everything is broken Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-04-12 19:15 +0100
                                  Re: Everything is broken Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-04-12 19:23 +0000
                                    Re: Everything is broken Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-04-12 23:30 -0400
                                      Re: Everything is broken BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-13 10:34 +0100
                                        Re: Everything is broken Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2015-04-13 20:08 +0000
                                          Re: Everything is broken Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-04-13 21:16 +0000
                                        Re: Everything is broken Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-04-13 16:27 -0400
                        Re: Everything is broken Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-04-10 14:43 +0000
                          Re: Everything is broken Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-04-10 11:08 -0400
                        Re: Everything is broken Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-04-10 20:54 +0000
                Re: Everything is broken Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-04-10 01:56 +0000
      Re: Everything is broken Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2015-04-07 22:27 +0100
        Re: Everything is broken Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-04-07 19:16 -0400
    Re: Everything is broken Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-09 19:11 -0700
      Re: Everything is broken Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-10 02:05 -0700
        Re: Everything is broken Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2015-04-10 20:22 +0000
          Re: Everything is broken Kees Nuyt <k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl> - 2015-04-11 01:49 +0200
      Re: Everything is broken Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-04-10 09:10 -0400
        Re: Everything is broken Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-10 13:57 -0700
          Re: Everything is broken Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-04-10 17:14 -0400
            Re: Everything is broken Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-10 18:42 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#7346

In article <UMfWw.157177$Zf4.65650@fx22.am4>, BartC <bc@freeuk.com>
wrote:

>On 10/04/2015 18:01, Dan Espen wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>>> Or is it possible that RAM, CPU and
>>> hard drive manufacturers have a vested interest in not only keeping
>>> things vast and complicated, but in making them even more so?
>>
>> Paranoia runs deep, into your mind it will creep.
>>
>> Everything is _not_ broken.
>> Back in the '60s we used punched cards to hold source code.
>> Since then we've reached computer nirvana.
>
>I've briefly used punched cards too, but during my CS course in the late 
>seventies when they were already nearly obsolete.
>
>Nevertheless, on one module the (Cobol) coursework was required to be 
>submitted on punched cards. I kept seeing other students on the course 
>walking around with stacks of cards 6 to 8" high.

Gosh, 6 to 8 inches.

When I was at CERN there was a German chap who always kept his whole
program on cards, as FORTRAN source. It was in trays containing 2000
cards each. He had 12 of these trays, and used to turn up with the
whole lot on a trolley. It took 20 minutes just to read his program
into the machine.

We suggested he could at least compile most of it and punch the binary
onto punched cards, thus reducing the number of cards by a factor of 10
or so. But he didn't like the idea.

-- 
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7356

Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:

> Nope, blindly criticizing things without being able to do better is
> sick.

So only artists can criticize art? Doesn't make sense to me.

-- 
Dario Niedermann.              Also on the Internet at:

gopher://retro-net.org/1/dnied/ , http://devio.us/~ndr/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7357

In article <slrnmil16r.26a.dnied@dnied-at-tiscali.it>, Dario Niedermann
<dnied@tiscali.it> wrote:

>Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Nope, blindly criticizing things without being able to do better is
>> sick.
>
>So only artists can criticize art? Doesn't make sense to me.

It makes no sense at all. Something is only art, and the perpetrator is
only an artist, if *I* say so. That is, something is only art if there
is a beholder who appreciates it enough to call it art. And even then
it's only art for that person.

-- 
HAL 9000:    Dave.  Put down those Windows disks.  Dave.  DAVE!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7313

BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
<snip>
> Let's take compilers as an example of where things have gotten a
> little out of hand.
>
> I have a compiler for my own C-like language. It takes about 2 seconds
> to compile all of it (using another of my languages which is
> /interpreted/).
>
> With the gcc compiler for C, I've heard various reports of 15 to 75
> /minutes/ for it to build itself.
>
> While with Visual Studio 2010, it apparently takes over 60 /hours/ to
> do a full build!
>
> So, 2 seconds, 1000+ seconds, 200,000 seconds. See the advantage of
> keeping things small and simple?

Not to me, no.  I have not built gcc even once in the last 20 years, so
any change that makes it build faster must have zero impact on the
functionality of the compiler or it will be simply a net disadvantage to
me.  (This includes any slow-down in the rate of development caused by
taking time to make the build faster.)

You might be saying that gcc is pointlessly slow, but that would need
more evidence than a few build times.

<snip>
-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7347

On 10/04/2015 16:54, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> <snip>
>> Let's take compilers as an example of where things have gotten a
>> little out of hand.
>>
>> I have a compiler for my own C-like language. It takes about 2 seconds
>> to compile all of it (using another of my languages which is
>> /interpreted/).
>>
>> With the gcc compiler for C, I've heard various reports of 15 to 75
>> /minutes/ for it to build itself.
>>
>> While with Visual Studio 2010, it apparently takes over 60 /hours/ to
>> do a full build!
>>
>> So, 2 seconds, 1000+ seconds, 200,000 seconds. See the advantage of
>> keeping things small and simple?
>
> Not to me, no.  I have not built gcc even once in the last 20 years, so
> any change that makes it build faster must have zero impact on the
> functionality of the compiler or it will be simply a net disadvantage to
> me.  (This includes any slow-down in the rate of development caused by
> taking time to make the build faster.)


> You might be saying that gcc is pointlessly slow, but that would need
> more evidence than a few build times.

This is about the slowness of the build due to the complexity and scale 
of the project. gcc itself is not that slow (although even at -O0, it is 
somewhat slower than my compiler), but that is a different matter.

My comments are within the context of a discussion about software 
systems getting get so big and sprawling that one part does not know 
what another part is going. Some people think that is OK, but I don't.

The trouble is that when you do have very complex systems (even consumer 
tablets now with internet, GPS, mobile comms, plus of course their 
massive OSes), how many people know just what is required to make it all 
work?

Is a 100MB download for an app reasonable, or would 10MB (or 1MB) be 
nearer the mark? Is a 6GB download for VS 2010 reasonable, to try it 
out? People forget just what a phenomenally huge amount 6GB actually is, 
when you're talking about /code/ (for video, it's a couple of hours). 
(6GB would be hundreds of millions of lines of code.)

I do think that many systems are far larger than they need to be, but 
few seem to care; just upgrade to a faster broadband, and bigger HDD, 
and it's sorted! Unfortunately that doesn't really deal with complexity.

(If I wrote a huge, sprawling 10,000-page novel that was all over that 
place and perhaps had loads of duplication, that would obviously need to 
be seriously edited down to 400 or 500 pages. In the software world 
however, it would just be printed at a smaller font to fit into 400 
pages! It is still rubbish, but it provided it works - just - then it's 
deemed to be OK.)

In the case of gcc which I understand is maintained by volunteers, I 
think jacob navia said that people who worked on it want to be 
remembered for what they've added to it, not for what they've removed! 
Which means it will just keep getting bigger and messier. Perhaps this 
applies to other software too, or even to languages...

-- 
Bartc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7316

BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 10/04/2015 14:17, Dan Espen wrote:
> 
>> Why do I comment on these threads?
>>
>> I object to blind criticism of everything.
> 
> My criticism is usually justified. When something works well, then I 
> will praise it, but that doesn't happen often.
> 
>> People work hard to do the best they can, but
>> people have no problem denigrating other peoples hard
>> work.
>>
>> It just bugs me.
>> I think it's a sign of a sick culture.
> 
> Let's take compilers as an example of where things have gotten a little 
> out of hand.
> 
> I have a compiler for my own C-like language. It takes about 2 seconds 
> to compile all of it (using another of my languages which is /interpreted/).
> 
> With the gcc compiler for C, I've heard various reports of 15 to 75 
> /minutes/ for it to build itself.

Last time I built gcc many years ago it compiled itself at least
twice, perhaps 3 times (it was a long time ago). The idea IIRC, was to
be sure it could compile itself correctly. ANd it's certainly grown
larger and more complex since then, along with C itself of course.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7317

Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> 
>> On 10/04/2015 01:56, Dan Espen wrote:
>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>>>> What OS does it use (if it uses anything at all)? I don't know, don't
>>>> care and shouldn't need to know; it's a dedicated device for storing
>>>> and reading books, and shouldn't be that much more difficult to use
>>>> than a real book.
>>>
>>> Kindle runs a version of Linux.
>>
>> I should have known.
>>
>> A Kindle consists mainly of solid state storage, a display, a
>> processor and some crude interface. Not much different from the
>> hardware I used to build in the 80s. It hardly needs an OS at all.
> 
> Crude?
> 
> I see no reason to call the interface crude.
> 
> By your earlier criteria, when I turn it on in the AM it responds in
> a second or so.
> 
>> However it also has a USB interface and especially WiFi (with all the
>> internet stuff the latter will use). These are too complex to write
>> drivers for from scratch, so it's necessary to import a large amount
>> of baggage.
> 
> Huh?
> 
>> Fortunately 99% of the time, once content has been downloaded, they
>> are not needed, and a Kindle is mainly used for frivolous purposes, so
>> that connectivity problems are not critical.
> 
> Oh, okay, I guess I'm frivolous then.  If you hadn't told me,
> I'd have guessed I was using the system for what I want to do.
> 
>> (Actually WiFi connectivity can be a hindrance; when I first got my
>> Kindle, the kids took it to play with. Half-an-hour later they'd
>> managed to download £5' worth of content! (Including a magazine
>> subscription.) Now the Kindle store is disabled...)
> 
> Of course.  Don't hand firearms to children.
> 
> 
> Why do I comment on these threads?
> 
> I object to blind criticism of everything.
> People work hard to do the best they can, but
> people have no problem denigrating other peoples hard
> work.
> 
> It just bugs me.
> I think it's a sign of a sick culture.

I *like* my kindle. It works well for what it's designed for which is
*reading books*. The only problem I have with it is the backlog of
things I have on it to be read. The interface is fast & responsive,oh
and easy to use. It's not quite as good as an actual book, but is much
more convenient that carrying around a large number of books.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7323

Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> writes:

> I *like* my kindle. It works well for what it's designed for which is
> *reading books*. The only problem I have with it is the backlog of
> things I have on it to be read. The interface is fast & responsive,oh
> and easy to use. It's not quite as good as an actual book, but is much
> more convenient that carrying around a large number of books.

I've grown really fond of reading on the kindle.
For most purposes, I prefer it over paper.
Easier to keep your place for one thing.
Nice that they have the option of white text on black too.
Only issue I have is reading in the sun.
I was thinking of getting a paperwhite model to deal with that.

Overall I find the interface well designed.
They have the carousel for things you access a lot.
The carousel has the large and scrolls right or left.
The carousel keeps items frequently
accessed at the front of the list so launching something is usually
touching the large icon launcher right in front of me.

You have to learn the special swipes for settings, exposing the
navigation icons, etc.   But it's mostly intuitive.

I got the model with dual cameras.  (Front and rear facing cameras.)
This thing would be slick for Skype, but I never talk on the phone
so I haven't bothered with Skype yet.

I've taken a lot of pictures with it.  It gives some nice hi-res
pictures.

So, Kindle, good example of something that is decidedly not broken.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7325

In article <mg9b4e$a38$2@dont-email.me>, Jerry Peters
<jerry@example.invalid> wrote:

>I *like* my kindle. It works well for what it's designed for which is
>*reading books*.

It doesn't /read/ books. It /displays/ books.

-- 
"... you must remember that if you're trying to propagate a creed of 
 poverty, gentleness and tolerance,  you need a very rich, powerful,
 authoritarian organisation to do it."             - Vice-Pope Eric

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7326

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:

> In article <mg9b4e$a38$2@dont-email.me>, Jerry Peters
> <jerry@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I *like* my kindle. It works well for what it's designed for which is
>>*reading books*.
>
> It doesn't /read/ books. It /displays/ books.

It also does audio books.

:)

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7358

On Fri, 10 Apr 2015, Dan Espen wrote:

> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:
>
>> In article <mg9b4e$a38$2@dont-email.me>, Jerry Peters
>> <jerry@example.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I *like* my kindle. It works well for what it's designed for which is
>>> *reading books*.
>>
>> It doesn't /read/ books. It /displays/ books.
>
> It also does audio books.
>
> :)
That's a feature worth adding, let it read it's own books out loud.

That beats having someone read the books and make MP3s.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7359

In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1504121351460.10384@darkstar.example.org>,
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Apr 2015, Dan Espen wrote:
>
>> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:
>>
>>> In article <mg9b4e$a38$2@dont-email.me>, Jerry Peters
>>> <jerry@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I *like* my kindle. It works well for what it's designed for which is
>>>> *reading books*.
>>>
>>> It doesn't /read/ books. It /displays/ books.
>>
>> It also does audio books.
>>
>> :)
>That's a feature worth adding, let it read it's own books out loud.

In a Swedish accent, you mean? Bugger that.

-- 
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7360

On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 13:52:31 -0400, Michael Black wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Apr 2015, Dan Espen wrote:
> 
>> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:
>>
>>> In article <mg9b4e$a38$2@dont-email.me>, Jerry Peters
>>> <jerry@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I *like* my kindle. It works well for what it's designed for which is
>>>> *reading books*.
>>>
>>> It doesn't /read/ books. It /displays/ books.
>>
>> It also does audio books.
>>
>> :)
> That's a feature worth adding, let it read it's own books out loud.
> 
> That beats having someone read the books and make MP3s.

My Kindle Keyboard not only does audio books - it also reads normal books 
aloud (with some exceptions which I believe are contractual rather than 
technical).

I still prefer the Kobo Aura.



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7361

On Sun, 12 Apr 2015, Bob Eager wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 13:52:31 -0400, Michael Black wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2015, Dan Espen wrote:
>>
>>> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> In article <mg9b4e$a38$2@dont-email.me>, Jerry Peters
>>>> <jerry@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I *like* my kindle. It works well for what it's designed for which is
>>>>> *reading books*.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't /read/ books. It /displays/ books.
>>>
>>> It also does audio books.
>>>
>>> :)
>> That's a feature worth adding, let it read it's own books out loud.
>>
>> That beats having someone read the books and make MP3s.
>
> My Kindle Keyboard not only does audio books - it also reads normal books
> aloud (with some exceptions which I believe are contractual rather than
> technical).
>
Then that's a good feature.

> I still prefer the Kobo Aura.
>
All I have is a Kobo mini, that I bought when it got real cheap, which 
seemed to be when they stopped selling it, in retrospect.

It is small, but I am distracted by the inability to display pages 
properly.  And I'd certainly like it to be able to read me the stories, 
I'd like to try that.

I went and got a Blackberry Playbook three years ago, thinking if I was 
going to spend about a hundred dollars on an ebook reader, I might as well 
spend more and get a full tablet.  That was quite useful, especially since 
I things changed so I made more use of it at home.  But it was heavy, I'd 
lie in bed reading and wake when the tablet fell.  I can fall asleep with 
the Kobo Mini, and when I wake, I'm still holding it.

But I realized with the Playbook that it would be better to have a 
dedicated ebook reader, especially if ebooks are the future of reading. 
So I got the Mini when it was on sale, but it is a tad too small.

Then I won a Microsoft Surface 2 a year ago, that is a better tablet than 
the Playbook, but it's even heavier.

And the stupid thing is, of all three devices, none of them are apparently 
compatible with Kobo's magazine service.  I can see the Mini being a 
problem, since it's only black and white e-ink, but the other are full 
blown tablets.  But they aren't mainstream enough apparently to bother 
fixing the apps for reading magazines.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7364

On 13/04/2015 04:30, Michael Black wrote:

> I went and got a Blackberry Playbook three years ago, thinking if I was
> going to spend about a hundred dollars on an ebook reader, I might as
> well spend more and get a full tablet.

I think I would spend more and get a real ebook reader, if they were 
more expensive.

A real ebook reader (along the lines of the original Kindle):

- Would have a display that is a lot easier on the eye compared with a 
luminous colour display (real books aren't usually in colour anyway)

- Is far easier to see outdoors or in direct sunlight

- Has a considerably longer battery life

- Is probably much lighter

- Being a dedicated device, would be more likely to be powered up 
rapidly and not be preoccupied or slowed down with numerous background 
processes.

- There is no distraction from any of the 700,000 possible apps that you 
might be tempted to download (or from emails or texts or any other kind 
of notification)

- Is less likely to be targeted by thieves.

- Less likely to annoy other people with the glow from the screen or by 
emitting unexpected sounds (or by hogging the only power outlet with the 
inevitable charger)

- But most importantly because you won't be just another palooka with a 
tablet!

-- 
Bartc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7369

BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 13/04/2015 04:30, Michael Black wrote:
> 
>> I went and got a Blackberry Playbook three years ago, thinking if I was
>> going to spend about a hundred dollars on an ebook reader, I might as
>> well spend more and get a full tablet.
> 
> I think I would spend more and get a real ebook reader, if they were 
> more expensive.
> 
> A real ebook reader (along the lines of the original Kindle):
> 
> - Would have a display that is a lot easier on the eye compared with a 
> luminous colour display (real books aren't usually in colour anyway)

My reason for buying a kindle. My eyes get tired after several hours
of reading a luminous screen, even when I take frequent breaks. The
kindle is much easier on my eyes.

> 
> - Is far easier to see outdoors or in direct sunlight
> 
> - Has a considerably longer battery life
> 
> - Is probably much lighter
> 
> - Being a dedicated device, would be more likely to be powered up 
> rapidly and not be preoccupied or slowed down with numerous background 
> processes.
> 
> - There is no distraction from any of the 700,000 possible apps that you 
> might be tempted to download (or from emails or texts or any other kind 
> of notification)
> 
> - Is less likely to be targeted by thieves.
> 
> - Less likely to annoy other people with the glow from the screen or by 
> emitting unexpected sounds (or by hogging the only power outlet with the 
> inevitable charger)
> 
> - But most importantly because you won't be just another palooka with a 
> tablet!
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7371

On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 20:08:40 +0000, Jerry Peters wrote:

> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> On 13/04/2015 04:30, Michael Black wrote:
>> 
>>> I went and got a Blackberry Playbook three years ago, thinking if I
>>> was going to spend about a hundred dollars on an ebook reader, I might
>>> as well spend more and get a full tablet.
>> 
>> I think I would spend more and get a real ebook reader, if they were
>> more expensive.
>> 
>> A real ebook reader (along the lines of the original Kindle):
>> 
>> - Would have a display that is a lot easier on the eye compared with a
>> luminous colour display (real books aren't usually in colour anyway)
> 
> My reason for buying a kindle. My eyes get tired after several hours of
> reading a luminous screen, even when I take frequent breaks. The kindle
> is much easier on my eyes.

Me too, although I decided to go for non-Amazon when I replaced the 
ancient Kindle. The Kobo seemed a good bet, especially at half price in 
Argos! And Kobos integrate well with Calibre.



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7370

On Mon, 13 Apr 2015, BartC wrote:

> On 13/04/2015 04:30, Michael Black wrote:
>
>> I went and got a Blackberry Playbook three years ago, thinking if I was
>> going to spend about a hundred dollars on an ebook reader, I might as
>> well spend more and get a full tablet.
>
> I think I would spend more and get a real ebook reader, if they were more 
> expensive.
>
> A real ebook reader (along the lines of the original Kindle):
>
> - Would have a display that is a lot easier on the eye compared with a 
> luminous colour display (real books aren't usually in colour anyway)
>
> - Is far easier to see outdoors or in direct sunlight
>
> - Has a considerably longer battery life
>
> - Is probably much lighter
>
> - Being a dedicated device, would be more likely to be powered up rapidly and 
> not be preoccupied or slowed down with numerous background processes.
>
> - There is no distraction from any of the 700,000 possible apps that you 
> might be tempted to download (or from emails or texts or any other kind of 
> notification)
>
> - Is less likely to be targeted by thieves.
>
> - Less likely to annoy other people with the glow from the screen or by 
> emitting unexpected sounds (or by hogging the only power outlet with the 
> inevitable charger)
>
> - But most importantly because you won't be just another palooka with a 
> tablet!
>
Yes, some of those are valid, which is what I discovered once I had the 
tablet.  But going in, the ebook readers were a bit more expensive than 
they've become, I didn't have a portable device, and I wasn't sure how 
much ebook reading I was going to do.

And having gotten the Kobo Mini, I really find I don't read much in the 
way of ebooks.  If I'm spending the money, I want a real book, not a 
virtual.  The only books I've read are those out of copyright, and I have 
lots of real books to read.  I was tempted to by "Astoria" by Peter Stark 
as an ebook, but no, that's a book I want around on the shelf.

Another consideration a few years later is I find myself using the tablet 
for a lot of things, and reading a book is getting away from that.

  Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7309

On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 10:50:41 +0100, BartC wrote:

> On 10/04/2015 01:56, Dan Espen wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> 
>>> What OS does it use (if it uses anything at all)? I don't know, don't
>>> care and shouldn't need to know; it's a dedicated device for storing
>>> and reading books, and shouldn't be that much more difficult to use
>>> than a real book.
>>
>> Kindle runs a version of Linux.
> 
> I should have known.
> 
> A Kindle consists mainly of solid state storage, a display, a processor
> and some crude interface. Not much different from the hardware I used to
> build in the 80s. It hardly needs an OS at all.
> 
> However it also has a USB interface and especially WiFi (with all the
> internet stuff the latter will use). These are too complex to write
> drivers for from scratch, so it's necessary to import a large amount of
> baggage.

I have a Kindle Keyboard, but have now stopped using it. 

It has 3GB of memory. Once I'd used 1GB of that, it became unacceptably 
slow to navigate to different books (page turning was OK). And searches 
were *very* slow.

Some really crappy algorithms in there.



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7311

Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> writes:

> On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 10:50:41 +0100, BartC wrote:
>
>> On 10/04/2015 01:56, Dan Espen wrote:
>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> 
>>>> What OS does it use (if it uses anything at all)? I don't know, don't
>>>> care and shouldn't need to know; it's a dedicated device for storing
>>>> and reading books, and shouldn't be that much more difficult to use
>>>> than a real book.
>>>
>>> Kindle runs a version of Linux.
>> 
>> I should have known.
>> 
>> A Kindle consists mainly of solid state storage, a display, a processor
>> and some crude interface. Not much different from the hardware I used to
>> build in the 80s. It hardly needs an OS at all.
>> 
>> However it also has a USB interface and especially WiFi (with all the
>> internet stuff the latter will use). These are too complex to write
>> drivers for from scratch, so it's necessary to import a large amount of
>> baggage.
>
> I have a Kindle Keyboard, but have now stopped using it. 
>
> It has 3GB of memory. Once I'd used 1GB of that, it became unacceptably 
> slow to navigate to different books (page turning was OK). And searches 
> were *very* slow.
>
> Some really crappy algorithms in there.

Never heard of one until you mentioned it.
Mine says 5GB in use, 20GB free.
No slowness yet.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web