Slashdot Mirror
Linux Not Supported For Democratic Convention Video
bucketoftruth writes "If you browse to the Democratic Convention website and attempt to check out any of their upcoming streams, you bump into the following limitation: 'We're sorry, but the Democratic Convention video web site isn't compatible with your operating system and/or browser. Please try again on a computer with the following Compatible operating systems: Windows XP SP2, Windows Vista, or a Mac with Tiger (OS 10.4) or Leopard (OS 10.5). Compatible browsers: Internet Explorer (version 6 or later), Firefox (version 2), or, if you are on a Mac, Safari (version 3.1) also works.'"
Ugh. What could these possibly offer that couldn't be done with, say, Flash?
Yeah, nothing to see here, there are heaps of sites like that. They can't test with all the distros, and versions of distros, and why would you bother? That's why Linux will never take off as a desktop solution on mass.
Even my online banking has special support for my iPhone browser, but it won't work with my friend's Linux box.
Linux's failure in the desktop market has nothing to do with quality of the product. It's purely the result of a fragmented product with too many versions.
Live streams require a solid infrastructure of distributed systems providing multi-cast feeds. Flash Server licenses on all those machines gets real expensive, real quick.
You know it is sad but true. I didn't vote for McCain in the primaries but he is who the Republican party got stuck with. He needs to wake up and start learning to have a real tech platform and soon. For one thing he needs to get on the right side and be FOR net neutrality even if he doesn't think that means legislation is needed just yet.
Barack Hussein Obama (Barry Soetoro) may have a good tech platform on his website but HE DIDN'T WRITE IT! In fact I doubt he knows about half the stuff up there. Even if that is his tech platform I think we can all agree that electing a President that has already started down the slippery slope of saying its ok to let babies die by denying them medical care would be a really bad idea.
Does the president have to know everything? I don't think Carter is eligible for re-election, and he was the last of his kind. If a president has advisors whom he trusts, and if he chose them well, and if he keeps tabs on what they're doing and gives them good high-level direction, that isn't such a bad thing. Consider Bush: IQ of about 4, and yet staggeringly effective at pushing his culture of greed, terror, ignorance, and whatnot, simply because he chose people who could be effective on his behalf. Not a bad system, if you're a good judge of character and if your heart is in the right place.
I'm not saying Obama's heart is in the right place. I don't really know; signs point to him not being a total disaster, and at least he obviously has a brain. I do know that McCain is at least as bad as Bush, completely obsessed with power, wealth, and the destruction of his sworn foes the Democrats and anything they stand for, good or bad.
And, like it or not, we have a system in which choosing anyone besides one of those two is almost the same as not voting. (Of course, voting is almost the same as not voting, as various Diebold employees have pointed out...).
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."