Slashdot Mirror
Belgium: A Computer in Every Home
joost writes "In an article published online by Belgian newspaper 'Het Nieuwsblad' (sorry only a dutch link), Belgian minister Miss Laurette Onkelinx speaks about her plan to provide every Belgian household with a computer. The minister is (amongst other things) responsible for 'equality' and therefore pushes the plan to provide the less fortunate with a pc. In the same article, she said she already started talking to Compaq for the hardware and Microsoft for the OS. Belgian Linux users are starting a campaign to petition Miss Onkelinx's departement, explaining their concern about the decision, and advising to look towards linux for an alternative.(more on be.comp.os.linux) You too can send an email by clicking here."
If they're going to provide computers to everyone, then they need an OS everyone can use. That breaks down into two possibilities: Windows and MacOS.
Personally, I'd try and strike a deal with Apple. Jobs would be glad to lose money on every computer, if it got him a foothold in every household in belgium, and it means good hardware, good software, and a not-so-unpleasant software company.
--Dan
Wasn't there just recently an article complaining about Microsoft pumping a .NET poll?
*scratches head*
is there much difference here?
If they want it to succeed, then they won't put Linux on the desktop for a few reasons:
1) Linux is not a user-friendly desktop OS. Don't get me wrong, it's trying really hard, but look at the facts.
Less than 5% use Linux on desktop. Don't give me that monopoly crap - we all know why Windows is King, it's cause MS writes kick-ass products.
I don't know a single Joe User who runs Linux and I know a *lot* of Joe Users.
Linux is a desktop failure.
2) If you include support structure costs It'll probably cost MORE than trusty ol' Windows.
3) Linux on desktop is NOT reliable. I'm a computer expert - I make money from supporting these things. Linux outta the box crashes more frequently than Windows outta the box.
4) The linux community is elitist. They hate Joe Users and it shows.
Yep, I'm bashing Linux. I've tried and tried to give Linux a chance on my box, but lets face it, it's better as a server and that's where it should stay.
Anyone who says Linux would be a desktop success is naive.
How's would that be any different than introducing them to Windows? It's not like there's anyone who is going to volunteer to do free tech support for a Belgium-sized population of Windows users, either.
It looks like one of the aspects of this thing is that these computers would be for people who don't already have computers. So the people who "need" (I use that term very loosely) these computers are less likely to already be Windows-trained than the general population. They're blank slates.
And when someone's a blank slate, any OS is just about as easy-to-learn as any other OS. If you don't believe that, watch a Win9x/NT/2k/XP newbie try to copy a file with "explorer" sometime, vs newbies on any other platform. The Mac newbies get it a little bit sooner, and after that, most other platforms are tied for second place.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Christ!
I didnt think the Geeks were so short sided!
Does it not occur to any of you, that the reason you know how to use computers is YOU HAD ACCESS TO THEM!
I keep hearing the same argument that giving people computers won't help them, but no one realizes that their own first exposure to computers was "given" to them by Someone else.
I keep hearing that you cant fix the problems of the poor by simply throwing money at the problem, but you tell me one thing that money doesnt make easier. Yeesh!
Sigs are dangerous coy things
Three years ago we were going to build an earth station in Colon, wire the area with fiber optics, provide local ISP service, etc. I interviewed over 40 Colon residents for different low level possitions. And do you know who I hired? The one with the biggest breasts. That's right. Not the one with the most experience (none had any), not the person with the least alcohol on their breath (they all reeked) and not the person willing to put in the effort (none of them were willing to EVER work past five). No, I hired the one with the biggest breasts. And do you know what? It did NOT pay off. She NEVER showed up to work on time, and when she did you could still smell the alcohol. We decided to close the shop very quickly. Lesson: there's more to life than breasts.
My god, you're the most sexist, biggotted person I've ever met! I hope you burn in Hell, you fucking loser, and that your company goes under. You're dispicable.
Day in and day out, Slashdot sings the praises of "open source" software. New readers of the site must be a little puzzled to find items like "GPL Violation discovered" and "Open Source Guru Speaks" listed on the main page alongside the "straight" science and technology news. Unfortunately, few people really know what Open Source stands for. Perhaps Richard Means Stallman, one of the founders of the movement, can elucidate.
"[The GNU goal was] to be able to use a computer without using any proprietary software," declaims RMS. "Because that way, you can lead a better life." Of course, the only way to get rid of proprietary software is to destroy the software companies that produce it. One way this is accomplished is by putting software that would normally be public domain under a license RMS himself created, called the "General Public License," or "GPL." Simply put, this license allows code to be reused-- unless the final product is distributed without its source code, as a proprietary product must be.
Software is a commodity, and people will often take the cheapest product, even if they have to spend inordinate amounts of time struggling with poor documentation and clumsy user interfaces. "One of the best things I could do with my life is: find a gigantic pile of proprietary software that was a trade secret, and start handing out copies on a street corner so it wouldn't be a trade secret any more," enthuses RMS. "Perhaps that would be a much more efficient way for me to give people new free software than actually writing it myself."
It's time to stop the doubletalk and start thinking about the real meaning of intellectual property. By some measures, intellectual property is the main export of the developed countries of the world. Artists, actors, and musicians make a living off the intellectual property they produce. Programmers and engineers create designs to be sold. And journalists and writers depend on intellectual property. Ironically, the only jobs not deeply tied to intellectual property are the jobs many slashdot readers affect to despise, like service workers, menial laborers, and administrators. If slashdot readers can't stomach Scott McNealy, maybe they would prefer to work with Ronald McDonald. From the other side of the fast food counter.
Not everyone enjoys working at a menial job in the day, simply in order to slave away at poorly organized programming projects. Not everyone enjoys being told that he has the "freedom" to work, without pay, for a small clique of free software partisans. It is one thing to oppose microsoft's monopoly on the desktop, and the RIAA's slow strangulation of fair use rights. It is quite another to embrace a whole economic and political ideology that centers around the exploitation of childlike programming savants.
This message is not a troll, although many slashdot readers may take it as such. It is simply a warning to users to think carefully before they blindly follow the political lead of Rob Malda, Jon Katz, and the like. I encourage readers to repost the text of this message, and others like it, to the supposedly "free" message boards of slashdot and other sites.
Peace out, and God bless.