I guarentee if you google it, you won't find much relevant information on the subject. Nanotechnology has entered the social meme-space, but femtotechnology or picotechnology are terms that are as alien as Nanotechnology was to the public thirty years ago.
The reason I bring the topic up is that there was this article over at "Next Big Future," (A website I highly recommend for any forward thinkers who like a bit more meat of explanation in their futurology).
The aforementioned article was mindblowing to me, which is saying something since my mind is regularly reinforced with unobtainium for protection through density (And apparently subject to unobtainium bullets).
It prefaces itself with the idea that femtotechnology is not being argued as reasonably possible, but that they are exploring the qualia of if it were.
The problem I run into is that I am an unrepentant optimist about some things. In my world view, if it exists at all, it can be made or manipulated by mankind with the proper tools. The article hit a particular point at home because I'd been tossing out half-thought questions at my friend if it were possible to manipulate and build on the nuclear particles rather than working on just the nano scale.
Which is of course a demonstration of Karl Jung's theory of Synchronicity; eary coincidences aligning and coinciding. If but a small one.
So it seems impossible right now. Improbable, unlikely, fantastical and mindboggling (Mine was boggled, about twelve times). Yet, now that it has entered my own memespace, I am a firm believer that it will happen! And sooner than prognostication would allow.
With the advent of a self-improving (And efficiency producing, since we make things at less than perfect efficiencies) AI, I'd imagine creating Nucleoid matter to be a triviality... but then my imagination exceeds my reach by far.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Gamers and Go: A commentary on Artificial Intelligence and its advances
In an article from Wired, they discuss how protein synthesis has recently been turned into a game in order to leverage the human creative process and see if by gaming the normally boring protein folding number-crunching that human beings can come up with better and more innovative folds of the proteins.
In completely unrelated news, a new program running off of Huygens has beaten four professional Go players. Go has been the benchmark for artificial intelligence since Deep Blue beat Kasparov at Chess.
On the one hand, we have human players being leveraged to use their imagination in order to improve upon brute force algorithm production in competition with computer software designed to fold proteins.
On the other hand, we have Supercomputers being programmed to beat professionals at games.
If you marry the two, and include also the concept of inventive AI's (such as from this other article from Wired), we may be on the virge of creating a system that displays both ingenuity and curiousity in its gaming tactics.
In which case, will we really need the gamers to fold proteins, or will our efforts at producing AI's that game better eventually give rise to a class of machines which outperform even the most ingenuitive of geniuses?
I leave the thoughts to you.
In completely unrelated news, a new program running off of Huygens has beaten four professional Go players. Go has been the benchmark for artificial intelligence since Deep Blue beat Kasparov at Chess.
On the one hand, we have human players being leveraged to use their imagination in order to improve upon brute force algorithm production in competition with computer software designed to fold proteins.
On the other hand, we have Supercomputers being programmed to beat professionals at games.
If you marry the two, and include also the concept of inventive AI's (such as from this other article from Wired), we may be on the virge of creating a system that displays both ingenuity and curiousity in its gaming tactics.
In which case, will we really need the gamers to fold proteins, or will our efforts at producing AI's that game better eventually give rise to a class of machines which outperform even the most ingenuitive of geniuses?
I leave the thoughts to you.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
DNA, MicroRNA and Proteins for a Healthier you.
I happen to own a Sony Playstation 3, which provides me a decent Blu-Ray player at a fairly reasonable price (Especially when you consider that the PS3 is firmware updatable, unlike other players). It's sleek black surface compliments my HD T.V. rather nicely, though it's got a scuff from the first day I took it out of the box and dropped it.
The reason I bring my media-machine up is that Sony participates in the Folding@home project, which essentially means that it downloads protein structures and uses the muscle of the Cell processor to find the various different ways.
Proteins have been an intrigue to biologists for quite a while, as a single protein can fold for various different purposes. The distributed computing effort for protein folding is a brute force examination of the many different ways each protein can fold, and one of the distributed computing projects that I actively participate in.
As our tools become more refined through time, we begin to understand better what sort of building blocks program the body into the shape and appearance we now inhabit, the progress to that point, as well as what unseen influences such as genetic disease and biological traits we happen to possess.
As example, scientists from standard in consortium with Sakari Kauppenin and RxGen have found that MicroRNA may be incredibly effective as a form of gene therapy.
That none of the Green Monkeys in the study showed negative reaction to the miRNA treatment is an incredible find, and if broader experimentation finds that miRNA blocking is harmless while remaining as potent as this study shows, it may see a less stringent examination by the FDA.
With the advent of miRNA, as well as the recent news that Craig Venter has been working on synthetic life (Which would code it's own designer proteins, amongst other things), combined with the news a month or so ago about automated assembly through usage of DNA, we can see a robust and versatile set of tools being developed for the future coming of true genetic mastery.
While many people are still dwelling on the idea that Genetic Engineering is relegated to those yet to come into the world (The idea that only fetuses can be successfully engineered or altered), I think it will come as a shock to them that many strides are being made to implement macro-engineering adult beings. Just last month, there was news that scientists are able to suppress some of the bodies autonomic defense responses when viruses alter genes, something which has always been a roadblock to effective engineering in adults.
The race is on, folks.... not just in nanotechnology, but biology as well.
The reason I bring my media-machine up is that Sony participates in the Folding@home project, which essentially means that it downloads protein structures and uses the muscle of the Cell processor to find the various different ways.
Proteins have been an intrigue to biologists for quite a while, as a single protein can fold for various different purposes. The distributed computing effort for protein folding is a brute force examination of the many different ways each protein can fold, and one of the distributed computing projects that I actively participate in.
As our tools become more refined through time, we begin to understand better what sort of building blocks program the body into the shape and appearance we now inhabit, the progress to that point, as well as what unseen influences such as genetic disease and biological traits we happen to possess.
As example, scientists from standard in consortium with Sakari Kauppenin and RxGen have found that MicroRNA may be incredibly effective as a form of gene therapy.
That none of the Green Monkeys in the study showed negative reaction to the miRNA treatment is an incredible find, and if broader experimentation finds that miRNA blocking is harmless while remaining as potent as this study shows, it may see a less stringent examination by the FDA.
With the advent of miRNA, as well as the recent news that Craig Venter has been working on synthetic life (Which would code it's own designer proteins, amongst other things), combined with the news a month or so ago about automated assembly through usage of DNA, we can see a robust and versatile set of tools being developed for the future coming of true genetic mastery.
While many people are still dwelling on the idea that Genetic Engineering is relegated to those yet to come into the world (The idea that only fetuses can be successfully engineered or altered), I think it will come as a shock to them that many strides are being made to implement macro-engineering adult beings. Just last month, there was news that scientists are able to suppress some of the bodies autonomic defense responses when viruses alter genes, something which has always been a roadblock to effective engineering in adults.
The race is on, folks.... not just in nanotechnology, but biology as well.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Smashing Technologies into Each Other
A lot of people tend to dismiss trans-humanism as a religious trope, with little basis upon the reality of current day science advancement. Many people like to say that trans-humanists are overly optimistic about things such as Engineered Negligible Senescence.
I am of the opinion, however, that it is not over zealous optimism, but the sign of a more networked brain which is able to connect unassociated discoveries in irrespective fields. Yesterday, I was watching the Science Channel try and compare many current technologies to Comic Book Superhero's. There is some level of silliness in this because they did a poor job of arguing for such capacity in human beings, taking the route of demonstrating it with large, clunky machines in most cases.
If we are able to seize control over our own genetic structure (A fact that is becoming more and more likely with every announcement in biology), the bizarre may become achievable far beyond the imaginations of the prognosticators.
What I am trying to get at, though, is that fields such as biology, AI research, robotics, nanotechnology and neurology... or hell, practically all scientific fields are developing parallel to each other. In a sense, they lack senses of their peripheries... which is necessitated by our current day and age.
Take for example the news about the DARPA challenge for Prosthetics and also compare it to the news about new thermoelectric materials. If taken separately, readers tend to think cool things are happening in science which is all well and good.
But why don't they MARRY technologies such as this? And many others! Rather than laboring separately, they should work in tandem WITH other fields.
I essentially feel there needs to be more communication in all the fields of science. Their tunnel vision is giving them a LACK of vision, and causing them to prognosticate "We won't be able to do that in the next 100 years, maybe not in the next 200."
Every day I read fascinating articles as every field races onward into the future, completely ignorant of the other racers and what they are accomplishing. We, as a race, need to have a broader vision than this... as everything is beginning to inter-relate in a more and more obvious fashion.
I am of the opinion, however, that it is not over zealous optimism, but the sign of a more networked brain which is able to connect unassociated discoveries in irrespective fields. Yesterday, I was watching the Science Channel try and compare many current technologies to Comic Book Superhero's. There is some level of silliness in this because they did a poor job of arguing for such capacity in human beings, taking the route of demonstrating it with large, clunky machines in most cases.
If we are able to seize control over our own genetic structure (A fact that is becoming more and more likely with every announcement in biology), the bizarre may become achievable far beyond the imaginations of the prognosticators.
What I am trying to get at, though, is that fields such as biology, AI research, robotics, nanotechnology and neurology... or hell, practically all scientific fields are developing parallel to each other. In a sense, they lack senses of their peripheries... which is necessitated by our current day and age.
Take for example the news about the DARPA challenge for Prosthetics and also compare it to the news about new thermoelectric materials. If taken separately, readers tend to think cool things are happening in science which is all well and good.
But why don't they MARRY technologies such as this? And many others! Rather than laboring separately, they should work in tandem WITH other fields.
I essentially feel there needs to be more communication in all the fields of science. Their tunnel vision is giving them a LACK of vision, and causing them to prognosticate "We won't be able to do that in the next 100 years, maybe not in the next 200."
Every day I read fascinating articles as every field races onward into the future, completely ignorant of the other racers and what they are accomplishing. We, as a race, need to have a broader vision than this... as everything is beginning to inter-relate in a more and more obvious fashion.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Waxing Philosophique of Dungeons & Dragons
Historically, I have long been a table top gamer. I cut my teeth on Advanced Dungeon's and Dragons back in the late 80's, and have always been something of a storyteller even before I found tabletop gaming.
I at one time would regularly regale other children in an interactive style fantasy world of my own making, encouraging adventurous participation and interaction with the world. This was at the tender age of six.
So it was something of a blow a couple weeks ago when Gary Gygax, the original "GM" and auteur of Dungeon's & Dragons met his untimely end. It's taken me this long to write about it because, for me, I was quite bruised by the loss.
In my eyes, Gary Gygax was not just The Irrepressible Dungeon Master, the game he helped give birth to has inspired thousands upon thousands of geeks, philosophers, thinkers, and scientists to attend their respective fields. The mysteries abound at what the world would have been like without Mr. Gygax's ineffable charms. His death affected me quite deeply, and perhaps more profoundly than many Geeks touched by his musings and hobbies.
Imagine if you would how many people would not have proceeded to their respectively geeky trades, and where the state of science might be today without Mr. Gygax fueling the subcutaneous nerdiness of those that fell in love with the game, or were able to find employment through old gaming buddies.
Some I've spoken of this to take a callous approach, feeling nothing significant for the man in question.
Of course, the reason I bring Mr. Gygax up is largely because of the direction which current owner of his landmark game system (That being Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast) is taking things.
To be clear, I am the kind of gamer for which Combat is merely a component of the game in which I play. For one such as I, the richness of the setting and the dynamic characters and NPC's are what make the game as great as it is.
Everyone developing 4th edition like to use the cavalier mentality that everyone in the game deserves to be perfectly equal, so that nobody gets to feel left out. So they are "Balancing" (A term I am unconvinced does not mean "Merchandising" as a synonymn) the game such that every class (Be it Fighter, Mage, Rogue, or Cleric) are equally as effective.
Thusly diminishing the uniqueness of playing the frail caster who can wield the power of the cosmos at his whim, or the rugged warrior whose grim façade tells of the indomitable force of strength his sword arm has represented against foes where magic or divine retribution failed.
Some people, apparently, chafe that the Rogue is less useful in all out combat than the shambling wall of muscle that is the enraged barbarian. While others continually spout atrocities about the uselessness of Bard's and Paladins.
For myself, I see no difference between what class you play... it's all in HOW you play your chosen character. Thusly, I see the efforts at squaring the board for everyone as being blasphemous and, ultimately, ruinous for the genre of game that I myself seek and enjoy.
I am not looking for a loot fest, nor am I looking for a fun way to waste a weekend. When I join a game, or when I run a game, I want adventure. I want romance, intrigue, tragedy, and wonder. I could give a nut less whether there is a combat every game, or if there are masses of loot because I am looking for stories and storytellers, not the juvenile half-wits who master their 60th level Prot-specced tank in WoW and think that somehow that qualifies them to be ROLE PLAYERS. Do not get me started on terms like "Tank" and whatnot.
The immovable barrier that separates those kinds of players from mine are what the difference is between ROLL playing and ROLE playing and, from what I gather from the brevity that has been 4ed coverage, all that they ever talk about is COMBAT balance. It is as if the entire purpose of assuming a character is lost on the development team.
Not that this is surprising. They've been trying to even the odds between classes since acquiring the rights to publish D&D from Tactical Systems Rules (TSR).
3rd edition, and intravenously 3.5, became a little less about the character and a little more about min/maxing your class and/or subclasses/prestige classes. Essentially, players asked themselves what posed the most horrible abuses that you could get away with in a game?
In some ways, the 3rd edition abandoned some aspects of epic storytelling to focus more on making a rules system out of the game. Not to say that there weren't many books of rules prior to 3rd edition, but many of them were far easier to remember and understand (Aside from the multitude of tables which the Game Master or Dungeon Master had to remember for various reasons).
This served to reduce the amount of time that respective storyteller's had to tell their stories by spreading the rules out to the players now as well. It created far more problems with rules lawyering, and having to keep track of what feats, skills, etc. your players were taking (Which was a dramatic increase from keeping track of what few proficiencies characters got in 2nd edition).
4th edition, respectively, seems even more of the same. An associate of mine has often commented on his loathing of the Authoritative GM, who pits himself against the players. The pendulum appears to be swinging in the opposite direction, to a very unhealthy degree.
Allow me to explain; Let us say that it is correct, that older editions of D&D contributed to a sort of Dictatorship on the storyteller's part. While some players may despise or dislike this manner of game, games still ran and functioned based upon the will of the GM. If you didn't like your respective Dictator, you were always welcomed to find another group or form one yourself. In many cases, tight knit gaming groups traded off the responsibilities of GMing a game, which served to provide some amount of flavor in the group by allowing different people to practice their storytelling chops (And provided a goodly variety of game for the other gamers in the group).
However, if the pendulum swings the other way, you suddenly have every player trying to lawyer it over each other as to who is mightier. A single dictatorship can work, six separate and inwardly selfish dictatorships make a game non-functional and everything quickly falls apart.
The more power and responsibility you remove from the seat of the DM, the less the storyteller has to do with the game and subsequently, the less gets done overall. By enabling the players to always succeed, but never outshine the other party members you are enabling a deeper problem to a once-dynamic game; being that players still want to compete and outshine their party members, but now they aren't capable of it.
There have been many people equating the changes coming to trying to turn D&D into an MMORPG like WoW. I think this is an apt metaphor, largely because they want everyone to be equally capable yet reliant upon the party. Nobody powerful enough to hack it on their own if need be. As a storyteller, nothing chafes me more than artificially generate situations; Such as six perfect strangers meeting in a pub and deciding (Perhaps based off of unreasonable levels of inebration) that it'll be a good idea to journey together for no subsequent reason. And beyond that, that they should set out to solve the world's problems because that's what the game entails.
Perhaps I am being a bit heated, but I feel my own player base is being largely ignored by Wizards in their development of 4e. I don't LIKE playing the game in such a fashion. If I was interested in mindless lootfests I'd play Diablo. If I was interested in uninspiring chain-quests, I'd play WoW. When I sit down at a table with six other people, I don't want to emulate the video games we COULD be playing. I don't want to come CLOSE to emulating those games, because that isn't why I get together with six people.
I get together to experience a world, tell a story, and portray heroes. When I say I want a Dynamic world, I also mean that I want Dynamic Player Character's; people who will far outshine their compatriots in their natural environments. Who will overshadow their comrades as mountainous titans of legend and history shaping entities. I want every player to have his moment in the sun... or if they choose, to play the unsung heroes of an adventuring troupe.
In the end, the only focus I have heard of in 4e has to do with combat. I feel that the game has abandoned me as a player, who never felt that killing a PC was a bad thing per say. I never believed Bard's or Paladin's were worthless Irritants because of their RP-centric focus. Would that every game could focus less on winning fights with monsters and getting treasure and more on enriching the fantasy world with personal exploits and experiences...
But perhaps I want to much from the game itself.
I at one time would regularly regale other children in an interactive style fantasy world of my own making, encouraging adventurous participation and interaction with the world. This was at the tender age of six.
So it was something of a blow a couple weeks ago when Gary Gygax, the original "GM" and auteur of Dungeon's & Dragons met his untimely end. It's taken me this long to write about it because, for me, I was quite bruised by the loss.
In my eyes, Gary Gygax was not just The Irrepressible Dungeon Master, the game he helped give birth to has inspired thousands upon thousands of geeks, philosophers, thinkers, and scientists to attend their respective fields. The mysteries abound at what the world would have been like without Mr. Gygax's ineffable charms. His death affected me quite deeply, and perhaps more profoundly than many Geeks touched by his musings and hobbies.
Imagine if you would how many people would not have proceeded to their respectively geeky trades, and where the state of science might be today without Mr. Gygax fueling the subcutaneous nerdiness of those that fell in love with the game, or were able to find employment through old gaming buddies.
Some I've spoken of this to take a callous approach, feeling nothing significant for the man in question.
Of course, the reason I bring Mr. Gygax up is largely because of the direction which current owner of his landmark game system (That being Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast) is taking things.
To be clear, I am the kind of gamer for which Combat is merely a component of the game in which I play. For one such as I, the richness of the setting and the dynamic characters and NPC's are what make the game as great as it is.
Everyone developing 4th edition like to use the cavalier mentality that everyone in the game deserves to be perfectly equal, so that nobody gets to feel left out. So they are "Balancing" (A term I am unconvinced does not mean "Merchandising" as a synonymn) the game such that every class (Be it Fighter, Mage, Rogue, or Cleric) are equally as effective.
Thusly diminishing the uniqueness of playing the frail caster who can wield the power of the cosmos at his whim, or the rugged warrior whose grim façade tells of the indomitable force of strength his sword arm has represented against foes where magic or divine retribution failed.
Some people, apparently, chafe that the Rogue is less useful in all out combat than the shambling wall of muscle that is the enraged barbarian. While others continually spout atrocities about the uselessness of Bard's and Paladins.
For myself, I see no difference between what class you play... it's all in HOW you play your chosen character. Thusly, I see the efforts at squaring the board for everyone as being blasphemous and, ultimately, ruinous for the genre of game that I myself seek and enjoy.
I am not looking for a loot fest, nor am I looking for a fun way to waste a weekend. When I join a game, or when I run a game, I want adventure. I want romance, intrigue, tragedy, and wonder. I could give a nut less whether there is a combat every game, or if there are masses of loot because I am looking for stories and storytellers, not the juvenile half-wits who master their 60th level Prot-specced tank in WoW and think that somehow that qualifies them to be ROLE PLAYERS. Do not get me started on terms like "Tank" and whatnot.
The immovable barrier that separates those kinds of players from mine are what the difference is between ROLL playing and ROLE playing and, from what I gather from the brevity that has been 4ed coverage, all that they ever talk about is COMBAT balance. It is as if the entire purpose of assuming a character is lost on the development team.
Not that this is surprising. They've been trying to even the odds between classes since acquiring the rights to publish D&D from Tactical Systems Rules (TSR).
3rd edition, and intravenously 3.5, became a little less about the character and a little more about min/maxing your class and/or subclasses/prestige classes. Essentially, players asked themselves what posed the most horrible abuses that you could get away with in a game?
In some ways, the 3rd edition abandoned some aspects of epic storytelling to focus more on making a rules system out of the game. Not to say that there weren't many books of rules prior to 3rd edition, but many of them were far easier to remember and understand (Aside from the multitude of tables which the Game Master or Dungeon Master had to remember for various reasons).
This served to reduce the amount of time that respective storyteller's had to tell their stories by spreading the rules out to the players now as well. It created far more problems with rules lawyering, and having to keep track of what feats, skills, etc. your players were taking (Which was a dramatic increase from keeping track of what few proficiencies characters got in 2nd edition).
4th edition, respectively, seems even more of the same. An associate of mine has often commented on his loathing of the Authoritative GM, who pits himself against the players. The pendulum appears to be swinging in the opposite direction, to a very unhealthy degree.
Allow me to explain; Let us say that it is correct, that older editions of D&D contributed to a sort of Dictatorship on the storyteller's part. While some players may despise or dislike this manner of game, games still ran and functioned based upon the will of the GM. If you didn't like your respective Dictator, you were always welcomed to find another group or form one yourself. In many cases, tight knit gaming groups traded off the responsibilities of GMing a game, which served to provide some amount of flavor in the group by allowing different people to practice their storytelling chops (And provided a goodly variety of game for the other gamers in the group).
However, if the pendulum swings the other way, you suddenly have every player trying to lawyer it over each other as to who is mightier. A single dictatorship can work, six separate and inwardly selfish dictatorships make a game non-functional and everything quickly falls apart.
The more power and responsibility you remove from the seat of the DM, the less the storyteller has to do with the game and subsequently, the less gets done overall. By enabling the players to always succeed, but never outshine the other party members you are enabling a deeper problem to a once-dynamic game; being that players still want to compete and outshine their party members, but now they aren't capable of it.
There have been many people equating the changes coming to trying to turn D&D into an MMORPG like WoW. I think this is an apt metaphor, largely because they want everyone to be equally capable yet reliant upon the party. Nobody powerful enough to hack it on their own if need be. As a storyteller, nothing chafes me more than artificially generate situations; Such as six perfect strangers meeting in a pub and deciding (Perhaps based off of unreasonable levels of inebration) that it'll be a good idea to journey together for no subsequent reason. And beyond that, that they should set out to solve the world's problems because that's what the game entails.
Perhaps I am being a bit heated, but I feel my own player base is being largely ignored by Wizards in their development of 4e. I don't LIKE playing the game in such a fashion. If I was interested in mindless lootfests I'd play Diablo. If I was interested in uninspiring chain-quests, I'd play WoW. When I sit down at a table with six other people, I don't want to emulate the video games we COULD be playing. I don't want to come CLOSE to emulating those games, because that isn't why I get together with six people.
I get together to experience a world, tell a story, and portray heroes. When I say I want a Dynamic world, I also mean that I want Dynamic Player Character's; people who will far outshine their compatriots in their natural environments. Who will overshadow their comrades as mountainous titans of legend and history shaping entities. I want every player to have his moment in the sun... or if they choose, to play the unsung heroes of an adventuring troupe.
In the end, the only focus I have heard of in 4e has to do with combat. I feel that the game has abandoned me as a player, who never felt that killing a PC was a bad thing per say. I never believed Bard's or Paladin's were worthless Irritants because of their RP-centric focus. Would that every game could focus less on winning fights with monsters and getting treasure and more on enriching the fantasy world with personal exploits and experiences...
But perhaps I want to much from the game itself.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Browsing with gOS
Recently, I downloaded the VMware viewer and the gOS virtual app. Visually, it borrows quite a bit from the layout and design of OSX, including expanding icons as the mouse rolls across the bottom bar.
In all due honesty, it's a bit bare bones, and it is somewhat lackluster due to the fact that the only appliances happen to be Google, which I would be fine with, if they were not all in Firefox.
If the developers of gOS can leverage some of the new ways that software is adapting (Adobe AIR comes to mind), the gOS might start to feel like an actual OS rather than a web browser.
This is actually one of my beefs with things like Meebo as well (Which is included in gOS, I notice). They're both very good at what they do, but one can't shake the feeling that they are just pretending at being serious, rather than actually investing in a real application.
When it comes to an instant messenger, I harken back to the days of 98 when ICQ had reached it's peak and was on it's way down. ICQ actually invented many of the ideas that have been dredged up by the social web since, they just happened to show up too early to be popular. Does anyone remember ICQ groups? How ICQ Multi User Chat worked?
Thing is, as instant messengers go, I honestly think that people such as trillian have gotten lazy (Honestly, Astra was started YEARS ago now!).
Which is why I think that gOS should definitely consider some of the on/offline application dev tools coming on the market now. In all honesty, it just seems very half baked. Whether it is because I am new to the Linux experience, or perhaps I'm just not the savvy type to find where you are supposed to change mouse-settings in gOS, I couldn't find how to make the mouse move faster.
I think gOS needs some basic functionality, as well as implementing some form of offline services. Like offline google gadgets (Which makes me wonder why google desktop wasn't included in gOS, since it is one of the nicer suites from google. And no Picasa?).
That being said, I like the visual execution. Simplicity in an OS is a must, and here gOS doesn't disappoint... it's straightforward, easy to understand, and even easier to use. It doesn't lag noticeably, and it seems to be far more reliable than my windows experiences have been in the past, though that may merely be the luck of the draw.
If you were going to ask me whether you should try it out... I'd say sure, if you have the time, the space, and the bandwidth to download it then it may be something to at least give a whirl.
Until they make a little more robust of an offering (And possibly include Desktop/Picasa), I'd have to say it isn't going to compete much with windows for most people.
In all due honesty, it's a bit bare bones, and it is somewhat lackluster due to the fact that the only appliances happen to be Google, which I would be fine with, if they were not all in Firefox.
If the developers of gOS can leverage some of the new ways that software is adapting (Adobe AIR comes to mind), the gOS might start to feel like an actual OS rather than a web browser.
This is actually one of my beefs with things like Meebo as well (Which is included in gOS, I notice). They're both very good at what they do, but one can't shake the feeling that they are just pretending at being serious, rather than actually investing in a real application.
When it comes to an instant messenger, I harken back to the days of 98 when ICQ had reached it's peak and was on it's way down. ICQ actually invented many of the ideas that have been dredged up by the social web since, they just happened to show up too early to be popular. Does anyone remember ICQ groups? How ICQ Multi User Chat worked?
Thing is, as instant messengers go, I honestly think that people such as trillian have gotten lazy (Honestly, Astra was started YEARS ago now!).
Which is why I think that gOS should definitely consider some of the on/offline application dev tools coming on the market now. In all honesty, it just seems very half baked. Whether it is because I am new to the Linux experience, or perhaps I'm just not the savvy type to find where you are supposed to change mouse-settings in gOS, I couldn't find how to make the mouse move faster.
I think gOS needs some basic functionality, as well as implementing some form of offline services. Like offline google gadgets (Which makes me wonder why google desktop wasn't included in gOS, since it is one of the nicer suites from google. And no Picasa?).
That being said, I like the visual execution. Simplicity in an OS is a must, and here gOS doesn't disappoint... it's straightforward, easy to understand, and even easier to use. It doesn't lag noticeably, and it seems to be far more reliable than my windows experiences have been in the past, though that may merely be the luck of the draw.
If you were going to ask me whether you should try it out... I'd say sure, if you have the time, the space, and the bandwidth to download it then it may be something to at least give a whirl.
Until they make a little more robust of an offering (And possibly include Desktop/Picasa), I'd have to say it isn't going to compete much with windows for most people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)