Slashdot Mirror
The Intersection of Microsoft, Linux, and China
at_$tephen writes "Fortune magazine has an article stressing the Chinese market's importance to Microsoft's long term strategy, and touching on Linux's involvement in the Chinese market. In the early days of Microsoft rampant piracy helped establish it as the de facto standard in PCs despite good alternatives. History may be unfolding again here, with the exception that having the Chinese government as an ally has huge additional benefits. Or perhaps Gates has met his match with the Chinese government. 'In another boost for Microsoft, the government last year required local PC manufacturers to load legal software on their computers. Lenovo, the market leader, had been shipping as few as 10% of its PCs that way, and even US PC makers in China were selling many machines "naked." Another mandate requires gradual legalization of the millions of computers in state-owned enterprises. In all, Gates says, the number of new machines shipped with legal software nationwide has risen from about 20% to more than 40% in the past 18 months.'"
"the number of new machines shipped with legal software nationwide has risen from about 20% to more than 40% in the past 18 months"
And how many of those are government owned? Given the number of pirated copies of my company's software I see attempting to register daily, I really don't believe those numbers.
'In another boost for Microsoft, the government last year required local PC manufacturers to load legal software on their computers. Lenovo, the market leader, had been shipping as few as 10% of its PCs that way, and even US PC makers in China were selling many machines "naked."
That's easy to get around if legality of OS is enforced: just load Linux on them. Those who want bogus Windows will just install over it.
Table-ized A.I.
This is very good! The more businesses are forced to actually pay for all those MS loaded machines, the easier they might consider using linux.
Go Microsoft!
(This is why I wish copyright protection on software would be 100% succesful: Too many people just download software and keep using it that way, if this would be impossible a fraction of those would pay but many more will start searching alternatives...)
Dependency hell? =>
may be a horrible thing but it probably has something to do with this. That and Chinese getting richer. With 98/2k/etc you could used a burn copy of any MS stuff and it'd all work perfectly with Windows Update and everything else. Now with XP after WGA and especially Vista you can still crack stuff but it becomes more of a hassle if you care about what's on your HDD and want updates and whatever else. So I think these are the reasons the piracy is going down instead of Chinese people suddenly caring about their certificates of authenticity and 3 men holograms :)
FTA
| "It's easier for our software to compete with Linux when there's piracy than when there's not," Gates says. |
OMG... What a business model !!!
It has been precisely the lax means and methods in Microsoft's anti-piracy efforts of the past that helped it to grow so quickly. illegitimate software was even counted in Microsoft's statements describing its market penetration and saturation.
Presently, Microsoft's copy protection has not only been shown to inconvenience legitimate users who upgrade their hardware and the like, but also makes illegitimate software distribution a great deal less convenient. And this is, obviously, to the detriment of Microsoft's present and future market penetration and saturation. Where once "alternatives" were a threat and even a previous reality [read OS/2], people are looking at alternatives once again in the form of Linux and MacOSX. These solutions do not offer the resistance that Windows offers and I think we can see clearly how Microsoft has managed to over-zealously shoot themselves in the foot.
By far the easiest solution for Microsoft would be to remove their copy protection schemes and just kind of look the other way for a while until their saturation once against builds the addictive dependency on Microsoft software that it is presently losing. It may mean some sort of decline in stock values or a leveling-out of revenues, but they would regain something far more important -- market saturation and monopoly control.
Why not just load the machines with a linux or bsd distro? That would meet the "non-naked" PC requirement. If the machines were destin for the Chinese market, then wouldn't Red Flag linux be the default distro?
If the govt becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites man to become his own law, it invites anarchy
You can get the real thing, and you get the same price." Indeed, in China's back alleys, Linux often costs more than Windows because it requires more disks. And Microsoft's own prices have dropped so low it now sells a $3 package of Windows and Office to students.
I do think its unfair that they get a "cost of living adjustment" for software and medicine, yet we have to compete for techie jobs on our own cost of living. They get the best of both worlds. This is another reason why free trade is not fair. They get almost 1st-world wages but only have to pay 3rd-world prices for these items. Tell me this is what Adam Smith and David Ricardo had in mind.
Table-ized A.I.
Hard to copy - failed on the stores.
There was a saying — in the beginning of our Republic — that a good idea can stand on its own, while a bad one needs government help. I can't find the founding father's quote at the moment...
Although recent generations have abandoned that concept (witness Social Security, and Municipal WiFi for examples), to rely on the help of Chinese government is a new low...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Exactly...I use Linux, but I am an IT geek. I know several people that are NOT geeks that have tried Linux, all of them went back to Windows. One of them was because of gaming, one was a wifi card in their laptop that they couldn't get to work, another didn't want to go searching for comparable software, etc. Until Linux is as easy to use and as widely supported by OEMs as Windows is....it's a no brainer. These people won't mind paying for Windows because of the frustrations of Linux. IMHO, Linux is, at least at this stage, a geeks/enthusiasts OS. Oh yah, and a broke dudes OS....(Universities, etc.) BTW...no need to insult me....I know I'll get moderated to 0 for this post...
If they don't wna the hassle of loading a disk image of linux on each box, just ship it with a copy of freedos. Its no longer a "naked pc." Dell did it before they decided to "embrace" linux.
* Back then, Linux was about as friendly to the average user as a dominatrix on a meth jag; this had more to do with hardware drivers (or rather, lack thereof) than anything else.
* The other x86 GUI-based alternatives for the typical home user were... OS/2 (insert sarcastic mention of how developers 'loved' writing for it), Geos (well, if you used a Commodore), and, umm... not much else, unless you wanted to lay down some serious dough and buy a Macintosh.
Ease of copying coupled with an interface that really didn't require much in the way of brainpower was what gave Windows its boost.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
The characterization of computers without pre-loaded software as "naked" and mandating that software be bundled with PCs by the retailer is nothing more than an attempt to create a barrier-to-entry into the market. Now, instead of creating your own operating system and just selling it, you have to negotiate with PC retailers (who probably have exclusive contracts with Microsoft) in order to be on the same footing as the more-established players.
That Linux and FreeDOS exist is a convenient workaround to the bundling requirements, but it doesn't negate the anti-competitive nature of Microsoft's "no software implies pirated software" BS.
I can buy a television without subscribing to cable TV service offered by Best Buy, why should a computer (for which there more options) be any different?
http://outcampaign.org/
Regardless of how you feel about MS hegemony, there is a certain practical logic to the argument that a naked PC is sort of a wink to piracy. Yes the owner might transferring over a legal copy of an OS purchased elsewhere. But realistically that's a tiny number. It's always a tricky argument to navigate. When is manufacturing lock picking tools a crime? They do have legitimate uses too. The argument is delicate because we've seen it abused, like with the arguments against the VCR, and these days, DVD ripping. One could go on and find all shades of grey (are people who write trojans and viruses committing crimes?)
In any case, there are other models for dealing with this issue that can be argued both for and against, though if we accept that it is a grey then are logical compromises. Namely system like the canadian model where taxes are paid on media and the proceeds, iirc, go to some recognized royalty distribution system. This anticipates that a lot of ripped music should have been paid for and was not, while also recognizing we can't criminalize everything, and simultaneously not over burdening legitimate use.
So how about if china were to impose a levy on all new PC's sold naked. The money would be shared out among a consortium of major OS makers. GNU/Linux should have a place at that table. I'm not quite sure in what form. But one could I think find some way to assist GNU/linux development even if there is no one recognized authority.
If at some point Linux became a major fraction of OS in China it would also make sense to stop that policy. No longer could one argue that naked PCs are piracy tools.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
The requirement to load legal software is fine as long as this is not the imposition of another Microsoft tax, which means load MS or you cannot sell the computer. So bare computers are being sold. So what? Microsoft shouldn't have any influence on whether this occurs or not. China has a good number of linux users and several of their own distributions. They are all legal. But, unless Microsoft drop their prices significantly for that market they are going to find it hard going to convert the masses. Business might (?) bite the bullet and pass the increased costs onto the customers but I cannot see many home users wanting to spend good money on software that they can get for free, be it linux or a pirated version of a Microsoft offering.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
If you read the article, you will see that forcing businesses to pay is what Microsoft started off by doing, quite unsuccessfully. Their usual heavy-handed strategy of suing businesses for pirating their software failed miserably, as the Chinese courts were not sympathetic towards Microsoft.
So, they finally changed their tactics, dropping prices dramatically. That's why they're finally making some headway in China. Oh, and some very active government lobbying seems to have played a big part as well. Microsoft seems to be best buddies with the Chinese government now, making deals with them, selling them software in huge quantities ...
Gotta love free enterprise. Corporations don't care where the money comes from; this is proved time and again by Western corporations sucking up to the Chinese government.
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
...In other news, China and Bill Gates have agreed on a China-oriented version of the popular Windows operating system -- it will be called 'Microsoft Tiananmen'. They've already agreed on the slogan. 'Microsoft Tiananmen' New and Improved -- now with fewer human rights!
However, there are downsides. Life in China by all account is not a lot of fun for most people. Access to things we take for granted is limited to the usual third world elite. It is not free trade is your problem, but the lack of democracy and knowledge about the rest of the world that China's people suffer from, and, I think, the acquiescence of the US population in their country being run by large businesses with monopolistic practices. If you had free trade, you would be able to buy those $3 Windows copies and the cheap medicines in the US. But you don't.
The difference between Adam Smith and Marx is basically that Smith lived in a world of tiny companies and thought capitalism was benign, while Marx lived in a world of growing capitalist monopolies and saw that it was not. What is happening in China is a repeat of the British industrial revolution - poor workers making an elite rich while being kept in a state of ignorance. Just as in the UK, some of those workers are more highly paid (the ones in the cities). How long before they start to get difficult? I really think that over the next thirty years we will find out whether in fact it was Smith or Marx who was right (my money is on Marx, as an economist you understand) and the laboratory will be China.
Pining for the fjords
HP has a Linux-based Quickplay OS for some of their laptops, on a seperate partition, that it can boot for quick access to multimedia functions. This is a legal OS. I belive Toshiba has a similar feature. These would be fine or Desktops as well. Major OEM's that don't want to preinstall Windows should provide a Linux version that can offer basic functions. Or a full implementation, the solution I would prefer.
When Chinese users want to install Windows, or another OS, they could choose to leave this on it's own partition and setup grub to dual-boot. There could also be a self-destruct button that wipes the partitions and formats the drive. Everyone (except MS) should love this as a government's job shouldn't be to force OEM's to help a company sell software. (think RIAA.)
Even as a Linux user I can sympathize with MS and their frustration, but their reaction does not help the cause of capitalism or Democracy in that region. This is very short-sighted and wrong.
Thanks to China, Red Flag Linux is a popular Linux Distro. Even if you're a Mac or Windows user you should sympathize with Linux users' frustratioins with having to receive preinstalled, paid for OSes that they do not want. In China or the US or any region at all.
The moderation part is actually sad, because you do have a point.
Linux software some times can be a bear to deal with. Finding an alternative is always hard because there is 6 different applications to do what you need. Windows has 80000 because it's so wide spread.
I feel linux , ubuntu especially has agreat system for that , it however relies heavily on broadband. Until the people can go into a store and buy Bejeweled or some other game like it and just insert a disc it is doomed to not get a decent foothold. Apple atleast has apple stores where you can buy some apps. While most of the nation is moving to broadband they don't really have the speed yet to download say open office or a decent application to replace the commonly used ones on windows.
Sad part is people just want to hit the button and it works. Not have to read man pages or web forums to get cards working after 3 days of searching. If we could only get the manufacturers to support thier hardware under linux as well as windows we could have a serious shot at getting linux on a lot more desktops.
I however love my Solaris box and my redhat box. The work great stay up constantly and do most of what I need. I very rarely have to boot up a vm with windows.
This package Does Not Contain a Winner
when I was in China I frequently had market sellers attempting to sell me dodgy DVDs and CDs for 2 or 3 Yuan.
But I don't think they had windows on them...... yikes!
Seriously though, even in the large multinational Shenzhen office I was in the IT support guy installed windows of a shiny gold disc - it was just how things were done there. The serial number was written on the top in black pen. I guess product activation and WGA make it more difficult for this to work so they crawl back to the conference table and talk.
BTW. Many of the top executives from another multinational always impressed me by running Yellow Dog on a USB stick - I'm not even sure their laptops even had software on - but the USB sticks were on their key rings. I always thought that was a neat security idea. I have never seen that done anywhere else.
Back in it's day DR-DOS was far better than MS-DOS was (even admitted by Microsoft employees). Anyway, it "somehow" failed to win. Why? I will let it to you as an execise (hint: .
The lesson to learn is: in the free market, Beta doesn't always win over VHS. In fact it looks like it's like 50/50 or something like that. Or put another way, the free market sucks selecting the best technology. The cause seems to be the myriad of other factors, specially *human* factors when there's an small group of people making decisions.
I realize most people who buy *naked* computers end up installing illegal software-- but microsoft makes it sound illegal.
Maybe Microsoft only requires $5 to consider a machine "legal" in China, while it requires $150 for legality in the U.S.
Ok, I get that /. readers hate Microsoft, but this is really a story about doing business in China more than how evil Microsoft is. The article really stresses how much Microsoft was hated when they tried the strong-arm tactics of selling (even more than in America) until they invested heavily in the country and opened a research center to change their image.
That really applies to all businesses trying to do business in China - particularly sales. It's actually quite an interesting story of business culture clashes and a good lesson on how standard US and EU business practices don't really work well in China.
Please don't compare installing Linux on a naked PC to writing viruses. It's not even an analogy, just flamebait.
As the story states, Microsoft is selling XP/Office bundles for $3 in emerging markets, in what is a clearly a defensive strategy to keep Linux from gaining a foothold in those markets.
This is going to be a popular product -- Microsoft products at Open Source prices -- however, it certainly can't be a sustainable strategy for Microsoft. Microsoft is using its enormous profits in other areas to essentially give Windows and Office for free to the third world. It won't be long before these $3 windows bundles, with valid product keys, start showing up on torrents and other file download sites.
What will be Microsoft's strategy when its $3 windows bundles start eating into its core business of selling over-priced software in developed countries?
Manufacturers won't support linux in the same way as they do windows until the Linux ABI is as stable as the one in windows. Hell, there's no point releasing a driver on an installation disk (even in source code format) the way the kernel ABI/API changes all the time, I have enough grief with ATI/NVIdia drivers and their updated all the time.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
If they look the other way too often, then govs. start to notice. In particular, MS is cracking down hard in the USA (via their bs group). How many politicians here can defend MS's practice, if we can all point to china and say that they are getting away with this?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
MS is the one who created this piracy is ok approach. They used it in the 80's to kill their competition. They use it now to break into markets (and subsidize via their windows sales). Finally, the reason why ppl are openly stealing it, is because they consider it overpriced for the value. If MS would price it correctly, or start offering good service for the money that they charge (i.e. the linux model), they would get more sales.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Linux has a much steeper hill to climb than Microsoft... Microsoft owns the hill and largely created the hill. People have expectations to be met and you can't easily change their expectations even if you can replace everything with non-Microsoft.
I have countless experiences that hinge entirely on managing a user's expectations as a means for success in deploying OSS to replace commercial software.
One case involved the deployment of the GiMP to replace Photoshop. Most users use Photoshop for shrinking and cropping their pictures at most... occasionally adding text. By first "removing the product" from the need, I identify the functions that need to be satisfied by a software tool selection. Especially when it comes to those very simple functions, GiMP is easy to work with -- you just have to get people beyond their expectations and be prepared to show them exactly how to accomplish those ends. For me, I showed them how to open a picture, crop it, resize it and add some text. NOTHING fancy at all... at least not at first. And then I recite my mantra to them:
"The computer is just a tool. The software is just a tool. You know what you need to do and that these tools can accomplish it. The only thing missing now is learning how to get it done."
It's not always successful but it's certainly more successful than installing software and hoping people will like it. The problem is they know what they know and are at least more comfortable with it than they are with something "new" even if it's essentially identical.
I have used the same methods in gaining adoption for OpenOffice and even a Linux Desktop in some cases.
So my method is simply to separate the product from the function and get the user to focus on the function. After that, it becomes a LITTLE easier to convince them to use alternatives.
And making it difficult to ship binary drivers is a bad thing? If the corporations in question would just release source---or even specs---for their devices once, the Linux devs would integrate the drivers into the kernel, and continue to update them through new kernel versions, and the hardware would work perfectly out of the box, just like all other supported hardware does...
Because, in this article, it appears that the phrase "legal software" actually means "Microsoft software."
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
...has a lot of accidents.
If there's anyone I hate more than stupid people, it's intellectuals.
If I am a computer nudist, can't I just buy a 'barebones' PC? Can't I sell 'Barebones' PCs that are missing input devices or RAM? A lot of people will be willing to put in their own stick of RAM if they can save $$ on MS OSes P.S. $$ must be a worth saving. If not, I wouldn't be bothered by dirt cheap MS software. I'll just buy laptops from Chinese retailers and get it shipped here (or is that not allowed? eBay seems to allow it though) Cheers!
Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
I love my Ubuntu GNU/Linux box. It does what I need it to do. Although I am knowledgeable enough to compile and configure my own system from scratch. I agree that GNU/Linux is not good enough for many mainstream users because of the lack of ready to install software from stores. Its also too bad that many popular gaming titles are not available in GNU/Linux natively. I understand that lots of popular titles may work in Cedega or Wine but many people do not want to go through the trouble of using that. My brother just wants things to work and is not like me who is willing to spend time compiling a kernel or build a web site.. etc. I am glad that GNU/Linux is maturing at a good pace. I hope it does take get accepted by popular game vendors and other PC vendors like Dell. Just my point of view on this matter... --kc2keo
Fortune is like Penthouse for pointy haired bosses.
Not that the Chinese tech market isn't interesting, but Fortune should not be veiwed as a news publication...
But the hardware doesn't work perfectly out of the box. There is always hacks and workarounds in the software due to rushing to get the hardware made and the software created for it to get it out for sale quick quick quick! If they published the specs, you WOULDN'T buy it, because its crap, so they don't.
nope, until people start off with Linux and OSS, they will continue to expect certain things which are tied to MS Windows and they way things "work"( or don't work ) on MS Windows.
So when school systems start using more and more Linux and the kids get familiar with how it works and how they do things the Linux way, you'll find far fewer people switching to Windows. IMO, given an open tool, kids will figure it out, give them a closed tool and they may use it but the restrictions on how it's used will limit their growth and learning. Things like OLPC and K12LTSP probably scare the crap out of Microsoft execs.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
You said:"The difference between Adam Smith and Marx is basically that Smith lived in a world of tiny companies and thought capitalism was benign, while Marx lived in a world of growing capitalist monopolies and saw that it was not. What is happening in China is a repeat of the British industrial revolution - poor workers making an elite rich while being kept in a state of ignorance. Just as in the UK, some of those workers are more highly paid (the ones in the cities). How long before they start to get difficult? I really think that over the next thirty years we will find out whether in fact it was Smith or Marx who was right (my money is on Marx, as an economist you understand) and the laboratory will be China." - It's exactly what they had in mind, by flying pig
The Wealth of Nations was published in 1776, and the U.S., Great Britain and all of Europe were the test beds. Yes, capitalism created the "super rich", which existed anyways, and it also raised the standard of living even for the poorest. The worst standard of living in the united is still higher than the average in the Soviet Union. We seem to forget that a huge experiment in socialism was conducted and it failed. If you read the article, and do some research on China, you will see that its leaders even believe that a market economy is better. They are just approaching it differently than us, but their goal is the same. Wesern Civilization changed from feudalism to capitalism over five hundred years with the slow rise of individual property rights, freedom of travel, and the relinquishment of government monopolies. They are trying to do it in a hundred years.
"Where have all the good people gone?" - Jack Johnson
Your second point is correct: The lack of support Linux experiences leads to people staying with Windows: after all, if they can only get Windows on hardware crippled so it only works with Windows, they're staying with it. Your first point, however, is utterly wrong: It is not Linux which is not ready, it is the people who are not ready for Linux - and be it because the people don't want to use Linux because it comes not preinstalled because the people don't buy Linux because... you get the idea. Therefore, whether Linux succeeds or not does depend not in the least in the qualities of Linux itself, but rather in the perception of being the king of the hill. After all, this is how Windows succeeded: not by delivering quality, but by marketing.
Of course, for Windows it also was significant that Microsoft got a whole new market delivered on a silver platter by IBM. However, the same has already happened for Linux: where Microsoft has the desktops, Linux has embedded devices and servers. However, a market cannot be new twice: There can never be a sudden success of Linux on the desktop, but every single computer has to be fought for, and Microsoft will use all their FUD they can muster to stop Linux.
Thus, don't blame Linux for being perceived as not being easy to use: Were Linux installed by someone else (like the OEMs do for Windows) and the first thing you were taught at the computer (instead of Windows), people would ask why one would want to switch to Windows.
Also, everyone please stop with those predictions about how they're going to be moderated. It makes you look dumb. (And I'll not be read at all, much less moderated.)
In Soviet Russia, government controls corporations.
In Capitalist America, corporations control government.
...which is all largely irrelevant.
This kind of sadistic user hostile sort of environment didn't stop Windows or MS-DOS when the main competitor was a vastly superior Macintosh. So this often trotted out fallacy is just that. People stay away from Linux (and also Macs) is because they have to worry about msword documents, IE only websites and games that won't run on anything but Windows.
"easy" has nothing to do with it.
"choice induced confusion" also has nothing to do with it.
The herd is comfortable with what they think the rest of the herd uses.
It's interesting how some people like to ignore or re-write history.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
...and I have yet to see a distro that is not boneheadedly retarded about CJK encodings.
The fact is, China is not a priority for open source developers, while it is a priority for Microsoft.
There are far more frustrations in Windows than in Linux. Sorry, wrong answer.
LOL...I'm not a fanboy of any kind so I ALWAYS get moderated to 0....I really don't care if I look dumb to a bunch of anonymous ppl....and I was right...I'm back down to 1 soon to be 0 ;)
Anyway, that "the people arent ready for linux" statement is far from correct in my view. I have installed Linux for ppl and they STILL didn't like it.....put a 6 year old kid on Linux and he will know it like the back of his/her hand in a couple months....put a 56 year old on the same machine for a couple months and see what happens...answer: they by windows. Until almost anything can be done with the mouse and no shell window pops up when you click an icon or menu selection....they will be just as confused.
In my opinion, and many others I have dealt with, Windows is far more intuitive and walks you through almost anything on a desktop. THAT is where Linux needs to get to make it into the mainstream. Your statements remind me of how Tesla thought, and he died poor and unhappy.....
Well, I'm not a fanboy of any kind, either. I just use the best tool for the job. It's not my fault that it always happens to be Linux - except for games, but there are better ways for wasting time. Lurking on /., for example.
Linux can easily be used without the shell, enabling everything you can do with Windows and more. Though I personally prefer using the shell, which is why using Windows is exceedingly painful to me because there are many things you can't do with Windows.
Still, your post just proves my point.
The child is willing to learn something new, the old people not. Most people, including you and I, were raised on Windows, thus it seems intuitive to us when it is not. But this is learned behavior:
If one's first language is English, one's going to prefer speaking English instead of learning French. Respectively, if one's first language is French, one's going to prefer speaking French instead of learning English. But because English is the lingua franca, the English speaker feels justified in his unwillingness to learn new things. This has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of French as a language and everything with the prevalence of English.
This, of couse, isn't just valid for Linux vs Windows, but also for GUI vs CLI. Indeed, using a GUI is a much more primitive method of interaction: Little babies point and moan. Grown ups speak. Also consider that the "holy grail" of interfaces, voice recognition, is a command line interface.
In Soviet Russia, government controls corporations.
In Capitalist America, corporations control government.
Markets in China are supremely important to all US business interests. The foundation of capitalism is businesses must grow. As barriers to growth pop up both here and in other markets, new opportunities must be found. There are 1 billion people in China. So it's not just Microsoft who sees the importance of markets in China. It's every company that ever had a widget to sell. It has become a great concern to the US government, too. Business interests and growing markets drives US policy these days, like it or not (see Iraqi petroleum). These concerns trump everything else. 50 years ago there would have been a hue and cry over such massive trade deals with Communists *gasp*. You don't hear that today.
China could change its form of government tomorrow to a representative democracy with free elections at all levels in every area, but if they tried to close down their borders with respect to trade the US would find a reason to go to war with them. The way it stands today that's not about to happen.
Well, as my post proved your point your point proved mine! :) What's easier, pointing and moaning or speaking?
;)
A 56 year old man who has never used a computer before (my dad) will never grasp the concept of Linux. Why? Because he has no inclination to learn anything about computers. He just wants some info that can be had from them. If Windows is less intuitive than Linux, why did he not want to use Linux? I setup a Redhat desktop for him and he hated it..I setup XP and he hasn't complained much since....We can argue about this all day long, but from my experience, ppl that have never used a computer find Windows easier to learn. I am not saying it isn't better than windows....in some ways it is in some ways it isn't....my point is "who's better" it is "Who's easier"? From my experience, people get acclimated to Windows faster. The same can be said for Apple OSX. While based on BSD, I didn't see a whole bunch of ppl running to download BSD when OSX came out. The refining they did to make it more usable and feature rich to a newbie is it's best feature to most beginners.
As to the "holy grail" of interfaces, IMHO, I would have to say that would be telepathic and not voice.
Of course Marx wasn't right about everything and, as I made I thought clear, I wasn't talking about his political philosophy. Marx perceived that the effect of unrestricted capitalism was that ultimately all wealth would end up in the hands of a very few rich people. And that is incorrect how? He never suggested that the economy was static; Marx wasn't stupid.
It never fails to amaze Europeans that many Americans confuse consumer goods with wealth. Many American workers have few vacations and work long hours. They find it hard to save. They may have relatively large houses and cars, but in many ways they are still bonded workers. They cannot just leave their jobs and survive without very unpleasant consequences. To an Athenian or a Roman citizen, (or to an obnoxious Brit with no mortgage and money in the bank) that's slavery. And that's without considering the inner city subclass and the illegal migrants. In the US, a form of slavery is still very much in fashion, but people are in denial about it. Unfortunately we have allowed it to be exported to this country, with bonded laborers, many Chinese or Eastern Europeans, being controlled by gangs and the Government making sympathetic noises and doing precisely nothing.
Adam Smith believed that everybody would benefit from the invisible hand of the market - well, except a load of foreigners and poor people who did not count. Marx believed that the rich and greedy would, in the end, impoverish everybody else relatively speaking. Look at the US. Look at the reduction in status and opportunity for most of the middle classes, compared with the 50s and 60s.
In the late 50s my father bought his first house on one and a half times his salary. That house now costs more than ten times the average UK middle class salary. In those days there were few gadgets, but look at those gadgets now. They are basically small and cheap ways of delivering cheap content at high prices; iPods, mobile phones.
You're being screwed by monopolists while being told you're in a free market. And if you don't like Marx, read two prophetic books by three great US science fiction writers: The Space Merchants, by Pohl & Kornbluth, and Player Piano, by Kurt Vonnegut.
Pining for the fjords
I guess I wanted to go anywhere with that, but I don't remember where... anyway:
As your father preferred Windows one can find people who never used a computer before and yet prefer Linux. It may not warrant claiming that Linux is easier, but in the same way it doesn't warrant claiming that Windows is easier. Also, in my experience RedHat is rather... well, let's better not go there.
My point is: "who's easier" isn't really that relevant, either. Though it has to be said that I haven't that much experience with people completely new to computers, because they either don't want to use computers at all, no matter which OS, or they already used Windows and therefore are completely unwilling to even try something else. Even if they try Linux, they quit it at the first problem they encounter - while having no problem at all with searching the whole internet for some driver for Windows.
While everyone may prefer one system over the other and while every system is far from perfect, I don't believe that it is about which system is easier but simply about which system is sold: For every single person who objectively prefers Windows there are thousands who don't even know of any alternative and just buy what is offered.
I don't really have a problem with people chosing the one or the other system. However, there are two things which really anger me, not only with respect to operating systems, but being an integral trait of society: Firstly, the complete unwillingness to learn anything. Secondly, that it is made intentionally difficult to use something else than what "everyone" uses.
When people are taught about Windows and not computers, it's just like if one wasn't taught in school about religions in general and the positives and negatives of each, but only a single one: one cannot choose, not knowing that others are available - and those who use others being put on no-fly- or dont-sell-to-lists. When they hear of the rituals of the other religion, they say that they won't convert to it, because they think those rituals are too restricting - but doing their own ones and making up stories about how the others are eating children and stuff.
Anyway, I'd better stop ranting now...
Though one has to wonder: would telepathy be more like a GUI or more like a CLI?
In Soviet Russia, government controls corporations.
In Capitalist America, corporations control government.
But this is entirely due to some very dubious licensing practices which say that an instance of software is only licensed to be used on a single PC, ever, even if that PC is no longer used.
It used to be perfectly okay for me to take the software, OS and all, from an old PC, and install it on my new one. I could even install it on two or three working PC's at a time as long as I (the licensed user) was only ever using it in a single place. Now software companies want to tell me that this is illegal.
My Dad is an oldschool carpanter and never needed to use a computer until he retired, then he wanted to learn how to use them to get various types of info. Other than him, I haven't ever had to teach someone from scratch either.
;)
lol, that is something I was wondering also.......
I like the religion analogy. It is perfect. Unfortunately, almost all christian, muslim, judaic, etc. schools all only teach their religion. Sure you can take classes on other religions, but it's going to be like Bill Gates teaching Linux. Your probably not going to get a great presentaion. I am making that statement without any actual experience in a religious school so I might be wrong, but the way most christians disdain other forms of christianity I think it is probably true.
"Though one has to wonder: would telepathy be more like a GUI or more like a CLI?
You know, what I don't understand. Is in a country like China. Where they don't seem to care much about other countries IP.
Home come someone there does not get ahold of the specification and source code for those winblows Wi-Fi cards and put the code up.
At least in China for there own use.
vi +
Is it just me, or does it look like Microsoft is doing a good deed here and undermining the Chinese government? It looks like Microsoft is infecting the Chinese goverment with Windows making it easier to hack them and steal information! :) I say yay!
I don't care which side of the copyright/patent/intellectual-property fence you're on, please Please PLEASE stop saying "rampant piracy".
Gagh.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
So is it a brightly-lit intersection?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
You're on the right track with convincing them that the computer and software are just tools. The big problem that comes up is when they need help with their tool. You can't always be there to show them how to use their tool. When they ask their friends, their friends are going to say, "I did it with Photoshop." and then they are going to look at them silly when they try to tell their friends that they are using. "GiMP." Another thing going against open source (Gimp in this example) is the fact that the "profesionals" use a specific tool (Photoshop in this example) and most people want to be like the professionals.
On a recent trip to China, I could not help but notice the number of people using Kubuntu. It was everywhere, far more prevalent than all the linux distros that I see here in Australia.
.
What you are saying doesn't make any sense what so ever. The only "restrictions" a closed tool will have might show up in file incompatibilities. Kids will figure out whatever you put in front of them, period, end of story. I'm willing to bet that given the current state of OSS vs. closed source software development, the perceived restrictions, from the point of view of a child, will be in the OSS software. It won't be nearly as feature rich. Just look at Excel vs. the rest of the OSS spreadsheet offerings as an example.
So when school systems start using more and more Linux and the kids get familiar with how it works and how they do things the Linux way, you'll find far fewer people switching to Windows.
I completely agree with this. Kids learn whatever happens to be in front of them. Kids learn to speak the language that their parents speak. The learning of the second language is what is relatively difficult. The same thing goes for computers. I can do just about anything (I say just about because there might be some isoteric exception out there) on a PC that anybody else can do on a Mac or a *nix box. The tools that I use to get the job done might not be the same as the tools that a Mac or *nix user would use, but the outcome will be the same.
what I was mentioning has more to do with how the proprietary systems tend to simplify and control how things are done while the OSS way is more toward choices and options. Just look at how easy it is to change the Microsoft desktop to some other desktop. They don't want to you do that and even restrict OEMs from doing this. Linux distros have KDE, Gnome, XFCE, etc and that's just desktops. Schools are also going to have a budget problem getting other things kids might get into but in the OSS world, their mostly just a download away. ie, there's more to mess with at the price point.
So it's about flexibility. Sure, it would be best to start everyone on the same configuration so they can get the hang of what's going on and ask others for help or help others. But, once they get the hang, they can learn more and more about the system, what it can do, how they can do it, etc. Even if they are only taught word processing in class, when home or elsewhere, they'd have tons of stuff to mess with in Linux while Windows and Mac are more restrictive in what can be done with the system and apps available. IMO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
...is a null set
- Old jungle saying.
The Macintosh was also vastly more expensive. It's become quite a bit more popular since the prices are more in line with a comparable PC.
My grandfather is 70 years old, and I gave him a computer with Linux on it. However, this was a long time ago, before there were as many apps, and I switched it over to Windows because people sent him email attachments that needed to be run in Windows (maybe .wmv files, I forget). Even though I did switch it to Windows, in general, he preferred Linux, the only issue was those email attachments.
Linux has come a long way since then (at the time, I had installed Debian, because it was the most user friendly).
This kind of sadistic user hostile sort of environment didn't stop Windows or MS-DOS when the main competitor was a vastly superior Macintosh.
Firstly, the Mac was significantly more expensive in the '80s and '90s.
Secondly, the end user demographic in that time period (well, up to the early '90s) was very different. The average computer user then was *interested in computers* and hence prepared to both learn more about how they worked and to use them, and put up with more teething problems in a rapidly evolving market.
The situation is very different today, the comparison doesn't hold. Users have higher expectations and most of them now have zero interest in how the machine works and learning about it.
I do think its unfair that they get a "cost of living adjustment" for software and medicine, yet we have to compete for techie jobs on our own cost of living. They get the best of both worlds.
I think you're mixed up here. If it were free trade then there won't be a law requiring an OS to be installed. Laws like this are an interference in a freemarket. Not only that but a freemarket would also allow someone to go to China and buy a warehouse full of disks then ship them back to the US and sell them here, thus giving MS a big incentive to drop the prices here. Better yet, under a true freemarket, nobody would legally be stopped from simply copying MS software and selling it. Adam Smith, the Father of Capitalism, was against copyrights and patents. They are an interference in a free market.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I really think that over the next thirty years we will find out whether in fact it was Smith or Marx who was right
Marxism already failed. The Soviet Union is no more, China is partially capitalistic, and even in Cuba there are private businesses. North Korea can't even be called Marxist, it's a dictatorship run by Kim Il Jung, and has people starving to death in the streets. The ones not being executed.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Heh, mainstreamer. Actually, it's Mises who's right about pretty much everything.
Mises and Hayek.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Look at the US. Look at the reduction in status and opportunity for most of the middle classes, compared with the 50s and 60s.
In the late 50s my father bought his first house on one and a half times his salary.
Opportunity is still there to be had in the USA for many people. My sisters and I come from the low income class. My older sister is a nurse and now is part of the middle class. My younger sister is a CPA and along with friends runs her own accounting business. She also owns a few rental properties. Though I'm not sure I think she's high income now. They both got that way via hard work and it's possible for most people to do the same if they work hard.
Now, I said "most people", it doesn't work out for everyone one matter how hard they work. Like me, like my sisters I went to college too, majoring in Computer Engineering. We were the first generation in our family to go to college. However while I was attending college I suffered a serious accident. One day after my classes I was riding my bike when a moving van hit me. I survived a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, which ended my dream of being a Computer Engineer. If it weren't the accident I'd be one now.
In those days there were few gadgets, but look at those gadgets now. They are basically small and cheap ways of delivering cheap content at high prices; iPods, mobile phones.
That's not the fault of capitalism, it is totally caused by consumerism.
FalconShould there be a Law?
convinced the government to enact monopolistic laws like requiring "legal" (ie Microsoft) software to be loaded onto each new machine produced.
Now I've rtfa more than once and I didn't read anywhere in it where it said the required software had to be from MS. I don't like MS but I don't think the way to fight it is by spreading stuff that's not true. If you have a link that says the law requires MS software can you provide?
FalconShould there be a Law?
The idea is that the cost is in the development, not the distribution.
That is true, but my question is, how can this succeed in the long term?
At some point in the future, computer users in the developing world will far outnumber computer users in developed nations. Eventually, the majority of MS's user base will be running cut-rate versions of Windows. Whether MS sells them for $3, $10, or $20, they will still be far below the normal retail price in the US.
Ah, it's like they'll get users addicted to Windows and Office then when they are making more money but can't afford to switch software MS will jack up the prices. Sell low so you can wipe out your competition or make too expensive to change then raise prices.
As for the long term, they don't care. Like all too many corporations today it all about this quarter, year, and the next one or two. "Long term" is maybe, just maybe 5 years.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You know, what I don't understand. Is in a country like China. Where they don't seem to care much about other countries IP.
China wants to be a member of the WTO and one requirement of the WTO is IP enforcement. If China didn't enforce other countries' IP it couldn't be admitted to the WTO.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If we could only get the manufacturers to support thier hardware under linux as well as windows we could have a serious shot at getting linux on a lot more desktops.
Yea, I've been looking for a dl dvd drive for my linux box but I haven't been able to find one I know will work. And I don't have the knowledge or expertize to work to get one working right. I've searched my distro's website as well as Linux Questions and Google but haven't been able to find any step by step instructions. Same with books.
FalconShould there be a Law?
They make it difficult to ship source only drivers too, and not all drivers get accepted into the kernel tree, and which manufacturers do you see falling over themselves to get the kernel developers to support the driver instead of themselves.
And yes, making it difficult is not impossible to ship binary drivers is a bad thing, any driver even a slightly buggy one (and don't tell me all the drivers in the kernel are stable and have no bugs) is better that no driver at all.
All I want is a linux that works with my hardware without me having to fuck around and write my own drivers etc... and the big thing that's holding that back is no stability in the kernel.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
The Macintosh was actually quite competitive with the branded hardware of the day. You needed to get a really nasty lowend clone brand in order to get a strong price advantage against an Apple with a PC.
OTOH, Atari's and Amigas were infact dramatically cheaper than Macs. These were also far superior to MS-DOS based clones.
Then there were the direct competitors to MS-DOS which were all superior even on the same "cheap hardware".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Conversely. The average command line based operating system of today supports Plug-n-Play driver detection, doesn't require MANUAL MEMORY MANAGEMENT, does pre-emptive multi-tasking and will fully exploit your cpu archiecture.
MS-DOS could really give a person the wrong impression on how a non-gui OS is supposed to be.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The Microsoft operating system of today is WAY more complex than DOS 5.0 ever dreamt of being. I am running Windows XP and there are currently 45 processes running simultaneously. I remember when the idea of being able to run two at a time was voodoo black magic. With that complexity has come main stream acceptance. The masses don't have time to figure out what every single file on their computer does. They don't have time to figure out the registry. The issue isn't that you can't get down to the low levels of the system. Those low levels are still there, they are just obfuscated by the GUI.
I compare the current state of Linux with Windows 3.11. Sure it has a GUI, but most of the people who use it are comfortable with the command line. Given the option to complete any specific task, odds are they are going to go to the shell to do it. When I say I compare it to Win311, I don't mean in terms of nifty eye candy, and process control, and all of that. I mean in terms of where the GUI is in relation to the underlying shell. Win311 had .ini files that pretty much controlled every aspect of the GUI. My understanding is that Linux has .conf files that accomplish the same thing. Microsoft eventually got sick of .ini files all over the place so they came up with the Registry. Does Linux have something similar? If not, how long until they do?
If I were a kid today, I'd be playing with Linux because that is where all of the control is. Linux provides kids today with the equivalent of what I got with DOS 5... full documentation as to what the heck is going on with the system. Microsoft has taken things to a whole other level at this point. They have pushed computing to the masses. They have given computers to the people who don't care about what the system is doing. Those people are the AOL users and the spam infested zombie machine owners. The computer landscape is a reflection of society as a whole. For every one person who wants to do things the right way, there are thousand others who want "good enough" and "right right now". And for the necessary car analogy, Windows users are like SUV owners. They don't care how much they pollute the world around them and how many resources they suck up doing it.
OS/2 has/had a GUI and complete GUI control of everything to "hide" the underlying control from users if they wanted it. BUT, it also had commandline and scriptable( REXX ) control of everything too. You could add menus to desktop/folders/etc from commandline and bounce networking if you wanted to tweak with what the network was doing or where it was going.
What Microsoft has done is not provide an easy interface for those who don't want to know or care about how the system works, but IMO, did all this to help them control the market by constantly keeping app vendors changing what's going on. As OS/2 would show you, it is possible to have a good GUI for managing the system and also have a good commandline and scriptable interface to those features. Microsoft is now getting closer to what OS/2 had in the mid 90s but it's only because of how flexible Linux is that's driving them to attempt to build this into Windows without losing control of the system.
BTW, OS/2 apps could use it's system/user dbase or use INI config files. It just wasn't the norm to put application INI files in system directories like it was for Windows. THAT was just plain stupid.
Any well designed system can have GUI interfaces for controlling the system after it's got sciptable control. Going the other way around is alot more work.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus