Points of note: comments are back on. I may blog about why some other day. Also, I spent some time re-editing many posts to include more points in smaller word counts, because my writing style is verbose.
I've discussed the pre-existing bias that comes with digital media. We inherently distrust digital items culturally, through increased complexity and less control over the product itself. This is shown through both consumer resistance as well as corporate resistance to such evolutions. This is perceived and is partially my perception of society and culture. Does reality actually reflect what we think?
This is in terms of my experience because I feel trying to generalize any thesis's from the topic would end poorly. When I talk about my own digital conversion, I'm discussing the lack of reliance on phsyical product versus digital distribution, not analog versus digital media playback.
Movies and TV Shows: I don't do much of this, but when I do (usually for things I'm nostalgic for) I just rip it from a DVD and give the disc away.
Music: I used to buy music from various MP3 stores online, but I have since converted to OGG and FLAC and now try to get either a CD or lossless audio for format shifting. The disc is typically stored or put with my books if I really, really like it. Sometimes I loan out CD's or give them away as gifts. I also use netlabels extensively, mostly for my ambient or downtempo electronic music.
Books: This is a mess, though this could be book production's current digital revolution. My physical books are usually used and cheaper than $5, while digital books (read on a Kindle 3) are whatever strikes my fancy and price point. The quantity at which I buy either depends on how much I'm reading, and if the public library has it. For Kindle purchases I use Calibre and additional plugin tools to remove DRM from Kindle formats and archive them locally and remotely. My book reading is as scattered as my purchasing and owning, so it's all over the map appropriately.
Games: Also a mess. I'm deciding which platform I prefer so I can eliminate the cruft, which is emotional and complicated. PC games? I'm digital. Wii? Digital: I rip using a hacked Wii and perpetually loan the discs to my brother. However, older consoles require physical media. Thus the debate continues.
Tweak
New Yorker talks about Steve Jobs (I sent it to my Kindle for ad-free reading - use something to clear the clutter!)
The article is an advertisement for the biography, yes. However, the thesis is that Jobs was a tweaker - changing things around him, pointing out what worked and endlessly pushing for more and toward his ideal perfection.
My first reaction to the article is whether the tech industry will have another full-on innovator. Perhaps. But as I learn about the past within computers, I see a cycle, or a pattern. What is cool, in focus, remembered will cycle forward and things are forgotten and then remembered again. Cultural focus shifts.
I was thinking as I was looking around at CLI applications: What hasn't been done? If I knew I'd be rich, or at least a little richer than I am now. But has there actually has been any legitimate new ideas in the tech industry of late? There's a long and complicated answer summed up with "Yes, but only a very little bit." It depends on what you qualify as "new," and how it stacks up to older eras.
The article's description of Jobs' endless tweak cycle impacted me because this is why I use Linux. I always tweak my own machines to perfection within my own limitations. I think that Jobs was incorrect in thinking that perfection for him is perfection for everyone, which is why I profess a love for open as much as he stood for closing his products.
The tech industry hasn't become stagnant, as much as its become fashion. It's bold, it's loud, and it sells. And considering the state the current mainstream tech press, is is fair to argue that they have become vapid fashion critics? This is why Jobs' face is plastered over People and Time - not because the tech industry has become mainstream, but because the tech industry has become about fashion. I don't particularly think Jobs intended this to be the case, but his death reveals it.
The article is an advertisement for the biography, yes. However, the thesis is that Jobs was a tweaker - changing things around him, pointing out what worked and endlessly pushing for more and toward his ideal perfection.
My first reaction to the article is whether the tech industry will have another full-on innovator. Perhaps. But as I learn about the past within computers, I see a cycle, or a pattern. What is cool, in focus, remembered will cycle forward and things are forgotten and then remembered again. Cultural focus shifts.
I was thinking as I was looking around at CLI applications: What hasn't been done? If I knew I'd be rich, or at least a little richer than I am now. But has there actually has been any legitimate new ideas in the tech industry of late? There's a long and complicated answer summed up with "Yes, but only a very little bit." It depends on what you qualify as "new," and how it stacks up to older eras.
The article's description of Jobs' endless tweak cycle impacted me because this is why I use Linux. I always tweak my own machines to perfection within my own limitations. I think that Jobs was incorrect in thinking that perfection for him is perfection for everyone, which is why I profess a love for open as much as he stood for closing his products.
The tech industry hasn't become stagnant, as much as its become fashion. It's bold, it's loud, and it sells. And considering the state the current mainstream tech press, is is fair to argue that they have become vapid fashion critics? This is why Jobs' face is plastered over People and Time - not because the tech industry has become mainstream, but because the tech industry has become about fashion. I don't particularly think Jobs intended this to be the case, but his death reveals it.
Reminder (mostly for myself)
You know what feels good? Getting rid of things I don't need any more.
You know what feels better? Not buying the things in the first place.
You know what feels better? Not buying the things in the first place.
bashpodder
Bashpodder is a bash script that watches RSS feeds of podcasts for you. You make a list of the podcasts you enjoy in its config file, run the script, and it checks to see if there are new episodes.
I'm pretty sure it's just checking for new episodes versus its .log file, and wget-ing the episodes that aren't there. This unfortunately means that the first time you run it, you'll get everything that podcast has available. But if that's a concern, you could always simply edit the script and comment out the wget commands, or add the URL's to the log file.
If I didn't have a bandwidth limit every month I'd get the job to get run on a regular basis, but I usually just run it when I'm at my local campus.
---
Podcasts I'm digging: The Bugle (news satire), Other People Podcast (writer interviews), Comedy Bang Bang (comedian interviews and improv), fslab.net's podcast (wide variety of techno mixes), and NPR/Radiolab's the American Life (journalism).
I'm pretty sure it's just checking for new episodes versus its .log file, and wget-ing the episodes that aren't there. This unfortunately means that the first time you run it, you'll get everything that podcast has available. But if that's a concern, you could always simply edit the script and comment out the wget commands, or add the URL's to the log file.
If I didn't have a bandwidth limit every month I'd get the job to get run on a regular basis, but I usually just run it when I'm at my local campus.
---
Podcasts I'm digging: The Bugle (news satire), Other People Podcast (writer interviews), Comedy Bang Bang (comedian interviews and improv), fslab.net's podcast (wide variety of techno mixes), and NPR/Radiolab's the American Life (journalism).
Obsolescence
The minimalist philosophy I've assumed since last time is a simple one. It's basically come down to this: if it doesn't improve my standard of living in a quantifiable and predictable way, I don't let it into my life.
However, I've also started to morph this concept into something incorporating sustainability - both personal and social. How long will this last? It's a profound question that gets ignored a lot in our fast, self-enclosed tech industry, where the tech press isn't necessarily holding the tech industry accountable any more and largely is the industry's way of boosting its own ego and relevance.
Had I not bought the Kindle yet, I probably wouldn't buy it remembering the sustainability theory. For digital books - once you rip the DRM - the sustainability is long, but for hardware, used books not only are useful longer, but are generally better for everyone. Sure, the obvious angle is that technology contains poisonous toxins, released everywhere on production and destruction. I bought the Kindle thinking that plain text won't be obsolete, but the device itself will not last forever: batteries and corporate support will die, and meanwhile paper books still remain untouched. It's less sustainable as a platform in my life. It may increase my standard of living in quantifiable ways, but it also comes with a price and an expiration date.
I've often praised "used" purchases as a more noble and effective way to move forward, and it's going to be a large part of how I live. When the tech industry is more interested in creating disposable, short lifespan devices that lack repair capabilities (see the appliances conversation we had last year) I find it more rewarding to save a few forgotten tools of yesterday from the trashcan and the eWaste dump. I usually can assume that if it has lasted this long and can still be sold, it will probably continue to do so.
Linux helps here by making old computers useful again, but that's a blog I've already written. It's back there. Trust me.
However, I've also started to morph this concept into something incorporating sustainability - both personal and social. How long will this last? It's a profound question that gets ignored a lot in our fast, self-enclosed tech industry, where the tech press isn't necessarily holding the tech industry accountable any more and largely is the industry's way of boosting its own ego and relevance.
Had I not bought the Kindle yet, I probably wouldn't buy it remembering the sustainability theory. For digital books - once you rip the DRM - the sustainability is long, but for hardware, used books not only are useful longer, but are generally better for everyone. Sure, the obvious angle is that technology contains poisonous toxins, released everywhere on production and destruction. I bought the Kindle thinking that plain text won't be obsolete, but the device itself will not last forever: batteries and corporate support will die, and meanwhile paper books still remain untouched. It's less sustainable as a platform in my life. It may increase my standard of living in quantifiable ways, but it also comes with a price and an expiration date.
I've often praised "used" purchases as a more noble and effective way to move forward, and it's going to be a large part of how I live. When the tech industry is more interested in creating disposable, short lifespan devices that lack repair capabilities (see the appliances conversation we had last year) I find it more rewarding to save a few forgotten tools of yesterday from the trashcan and the eWaste dump. I usually can assume that if it has lasted this long and can still be sold, it will probably continue to do so.
Linux helps here by making old computers useful again, but that's a blog I've already written. It's back there. Trust me.
Re: Change
My Linux Rig posted about Change.
Naturally the Apple fans will enjoy what comes their way. I see it largely as a brand loyalty of the utmost crucial to a company's survival, but as for why and now, I can't understand. But trust is a very key point that Linux Rig goes on to make. I think a lot of the reason why I would use Linux over OS X is because I don't trust OS X. But I don't particularly trust Linux either, either as a whole community or as individual projects, but I trust some of them more than OS X at least
The reason why Ubuntu hit resistance in their Unity project is because they have no trust. They haven't earned it. Why would they? After years of creating endless issues mucking around with glibc and buggy Python apps, they're suddenly going to make their own desktop? This is a small project trying to accomplish big things. It's hard not to be pessimistic. If Apple had already released several iterations of the iPhone that were buggy and crashed and never worked, do you think users would upgrade to that?
Ubuntu comes off as a bleeding edge distro. You want to get the new release so you have the new Firefox, the new LibreOffice, etc. Every release is incremental, but you like seeing that progress. Why else have a six month release window? Otherwise risk becomes apparent, not only workflow but in system and desktop performance. This is in what used to be a relatively risk-free environment (Debian) king among all features. That forward motion can halt at any moment, and once we run out of road, what do we do?
Having purchased and used OSX Lion for several days, I can't say I'm entirely pleased. It seems like there's more animation, more cruft, more glitz and less control. It shouldn't have cost $30 for what it offers. But the real issue is why it was released at all. Change is nice, but where are we going with it? Why are we changing? For the sake of doing so? It's not useful change, or purpose-driven change. This is what OS X Lion, KDE4 and Gnome 3 felt like. They don't change in a direction that says, this is why and this is where. They just change because they are expected to, because they have to to get people to keep upgrading. It's up to consumers to figure out why.
KDE and Gnome spent years crafting very distinct, working desktops that looked great and operated smoothly. Then, two competing, inferior, buggier desktops with flashier graphics and little of the stability we once knew. OSX Lion? Suddenly my apps don't work, stability is lesser than Snow Leopard and my wallet is $30 lighter. Hell if change was worth it.
Change isn't always bad for Linux, I agree. I like incremental evolution. I like change I can see and understand, and plan for. I don't like change for the sake of change. There's no point to that.
As a Linux user, it’s kind of hard for me to wrap my head around. Because reading about the changes made in Lion, I thought users would be upset that they had lost some functionality (and, to be fair, some people are upset about that) and that some UI choices had been made without their input.
I have a unique experience now in that I've been forced over to the Mac due to my college and have been trying to force myself into this ecosystem. As such, I have some things to say.But Mac people just roll with it, trusting that Apple’s changes are improvements.
Compare that to the response to Unity, which was mostly negative. I would argue the negative response was driven by the fact that Canonical forced the change on users, rather than letting them opt-in to a dramatically new UI.
Part of me wishes the Linux community were more open to change, the way the Mac community is. And part of me is proud to be a part of a community that has so much choice, resisting change isn’t too hard to do.
Naturally the Apple fans will enjoy what comes their way. I see it largely as a brand loyalty of the utmost crucial to a company's survival, but as for why and now, I can't understand. But trust is a very key point that Linux Rig goes on to make. I think a lot of the reason why I would use Linux over OS X is because I don't trust OS X. But I don't particularly trust Linux either, either as a whole community or as individual projects, but I trust some of them more than OS X at least
The reason why Ubuntu hit resistance in their Unity project is because they have no trust. They haven't earned it. Why would they? After years of creating endless issues mucking around with glibc and buggy Python apps, they're suddenly going to make their own desktop? This is a small project trying to accomplish big things. It's hard not to be pessimistic. If Apple had already released several iterations of the iPhone that were buggy and crashed and never worked, do you think users would upgrade to that?
Ubuntu comes off as a bleeding edge distro. You want to get the new release so you have the new Firefox, the new LibreOffice, etc. Every release is incremental, but you like seeing that progress. Why else have a six month release window? Otherwise risk becomes apparent, not only workflow but in system and desktop performance. This is in what used to be a relatively risk-free environment (Debian) king among all features. That forward motion can halt at any moment, and once we run out of road, what do we do?
Having purchased and used OSX Lion for several days, I can't say I'm entirely pleased. It seems like there's more animation, more cruft, more glitz and less control. It shouldn't have cost $30 for what it offers. But the real issue is why it was released at all. Change is nice, but where are we going with it? Why are we changing? For the sake of doing so? It's not useful change, or purpose-driven change. This is what OS X Lion, KDE4 and Gnome 3 felt like. They don't change in a direction that says, this is why and this is where. They just change because they are expected to, because they have to to get people to keep upgrading. It's up to consumers to figure out why.
KDE and Gnome spent years crafting very distinct, working desktops that looked great and operated smoothly. Then, two competing, inferior, buggier desktops with flashier graphics and little of the stability we once knew. OSX Lion? Suddenly my apps don't work, stability is lesser than Snow Leopard and my wallet is $30 lighter. Hell if change was worth it.
Change isn't always bad for Linux, I agree. I like incremental evolution. I like change I can see and understand, and plan for. I don't like change for the sake of change. There's no point to that.
Musings on DIY
I've complained enough about my iPod nano (4th gen) to make my lungs gasp in agony if I ever verbalized my digitized ramblings. However, what really bothers me about the device is how little I control, even on a physical level.
I've had dust in the little area between the screen and the glass for years. You would think the design would allow easy access, but no; purposely placed mechanisms make opening the device incompatible with future operation.
I'm fine with making things not obvious in how to open and fix. But outright making it impossible? What makes me think I should place my trust in Apple to fix issues for me? What about trivial issues such as dust in the screen? I am not a baby; I can do things for myself. Besides, my warranty expired years ago, so Apple's benefit is null as well as mine.
Control is longevity. This example is a physical version, but what of software?
Think about some e-reader that is locked down and can only read specific file formats. (The Kindle has the latter issue but its software is not locked down) Eventually the software lock will reduce usefulness, due to changing industry file formats. Look at how quickly the war between ePub and MOBI sprung up, from where we had barely any tussle at all.
From small fixes to the screen to large fixes in what file format a device supports, these are fundamentals in usefulness when problems occur. They do; even on a closed, locked ecosystem like the iPod, problems occur. Advertising will tell you differently. But I've already mentioned trust.
So we ask: how can this be fixed?
On the converse, how rewarding is it to open your computer case and clean it out, insuring proper care and maintenance is rewarded with many years of ceaseless operation? Or being able to clean a screen when it gets dirty? Or being able to install a new operating system on an old computer, so that what was once a useless security breach is suddenly a useful again?
We should not pretend our skills are not formidable. We enjoy computers. We want them to last. The ability to fix one's own device is simply an extension of this principle.
I've had dust in the little area between the screen and the glass for years. You would think the design would allow easy access, but no; purposely placed mechanisms make opening the device incompatible with future operation.
I'm fine with making things not obvious in how to open and fix. But outright making it impossible? What makes me think I should place my trust in Apple to fix issues for me? What about trivial issues such as dust in the screen? I am not a baby; I can do things for myself. Besides, my warranty expired years ago, so Apple's benefit is null as well as mine.
Control is longevity. This example is a physical version, but what of software?
Think about some e-reader that is locked down and can only read specific file formats. (The Kindle has the latter issue but its software is not locked down) Eventually the software lock will reduce usefulness, due to changing industry file formats. Look at how quickly the war between ePub and MOBI sprung up, from where we had barely any tussle at all.
From small fixes to the screen to large fixes in what file format a device supports, these are fundamentals in usefulness when problems occur. They do; even on a closed, locked ecosystem like the iPod, problems occur. Advertising will tell you differently. But I've already mentioned trust.
So we ask: how can this be fixed?
On the converse, how rewarding is it to open your computer case and clean it out, insuring proper care and maintenance is rewarded with many years of ceaseless operation? Or being able to clean a screen when it gets dirty? Or being able to install a new operating system on an old computer, so that what was once a useless security breach is suddenly a useful again?
We should not pretend our skills are not formidable. We enjoy computers. We want them to last. The ability to fix one's own device is simply an extension of this principle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)