Notice I said "typically" and "you" as in the average player. Sure, some people never played it at the hardest setting, so what? They're games, they're supposed to be fun. Sometimes I played it on expert and occasionally I just wanted to be a bastard and kill every single enemy. You know, play the game, not just move through it at the hardest setting checking off levels like it's some kind of task to be completed.
Even if you played to kill it was never going to be Quake-like since outright battling would inveitably lead to your death so the stealth element wasn't lost, just lessened.
That's true. Although in Thief there was a very limited number of enemies in any one mission (usually no more than 20 IIRC) and typically you wouldn't kill more than a couple of people so there was never an issue of the system being overwhelmed by too many bodies.
There's occasionally HD (1080i) porn on torrent sites. I'm not sure that having that clear a view of some guy's nut hairs and ass pimples is really a good deal, but the stuff's available. God is in the details.
Is there that much HD porn content available online? I'm sure it's available in some places but generally the sheer size of HD content is enough to stretch even modern broadband's limits and I don't think it's as nearly prevalent as porn at standard resolutions. With that in mind the porn endorsement is perhaps still a pretty big deal in the format wars. Depends how serious people are about their porn I guess.
Everything in this post is based on what a friend told me...
A lot of these open-source projects are developed outside the United States. We want to be able to distribute this Windows clone in territories where courts have recognized patents on methods of communication defined by data processing algorithms (e.g. LZW, MP3). Possibly, however the bottom line is that this is no more of an issue for my hypothetical Windows-a-like then it is for desktop Linux. The difference perhaps being that there's a fair chance that if the Windows user is using anything but WMP they can still run their favourite media player on the OS as-is.
WMA player software on Windows relies on the codecs provided as part of the Windows Media Player software, which require a validly licensed copy of Windows to be present. Do programs like Winamp use WMP for this? I admit I've never dealt with WMA much because, well, quite frankly it's a bullshit format. Obviously some people use it, maybe there's an issue for them in some cases where their chosen player requires WMP codecs, again though this is no more of an issue then it would be for people trying to switch to Linux.
AAC is just as much patented, and FairPlay is just as much a trade secret, as WMA technologies. Yes but if they're using an iPod they're almost definitely using iTunes aswell, which of course handles AAC, MP3, and I believe possibly WMA aswell.
Per copyright law, you'll have to have a validly licensed copy of Windows present in order to run these programs, so why not just use Windows and avoid the bother of maintaining a dual boot? I don't think there's anything in copyright law that demands you to own Microsoft Windows in order to run Microsoft Office? Granted I don't think I've ever installed MS Office, however if it tries to make such a requirement that's an anti-trust suit waiting to be made (at least here in Europe). As for WMP and IE, well I believe it's possible for these to be installed and run separately of Windows although I doubt it simple enough for the target audience. However remember that this is all part of a what-if scenario where the user finds whatever equivalent comes with the OS unacceptable. And again this then begs the issue of what would Linux do any better in this unique situation?
I was imagining the following use case: Windows 98 is released. Free software developers take years to clone all of its user interface, relying on the uncopyrightability of user interfaces under United States copyright case law (Lotus v. Borland). Before they finish, Windows XP is released. Or: Windows XP is released. Free software developers take years to clone all of its user interface. Before they finish, Windows Vista is released. Fair enough, but as I said I don't think they'd be that far behind if a concerted effort is made. Maybe one version behind from the initial build, but then most people don't rush out to buy a new version of Windows anyway so I don't consider that a major roadblock.
I'll apologise in advance for typos and grammatical errors on this one. It's 2am here.
They'll notice the lack of trademarks all right: "Where's the blue E? How do I get to the Intarweb?" They'll also notice the lack of patents: "How do I play MP3s on this?" and trade secrets: "How do I play the WMAs I bought from the online music store on this?" I think Firefox and Opera have shown that the "blue E" doesn't have the strangehold on internet access that MS would have you believe, even for the unwashed masses. As long as it's got a decent browser like Firefox or Opera going for it and it's clearly labelled "Internet" then I don't see that as an issue. MP3s could pose a problem however there are plenty of open source projects that support them, if they can do it why not this? As for WMA, well I see that as far less of a problem, however presumably the reason someone would be using WMA's is if they're using a portable device which plays them, in which case the software/codecs installed by the device would provide the playability? With the market-dominance of WMA-incompatible iPods I don't see this as a huge issue anyway.
Except by the time we're done copying the menu structure of Windows Control Panel and IE and Windows Media Player and Office and everything to the jot and tittle, Microsoft will have introduced a new OS version and everybody will be used to that. How many people trained on Windows Vista will be able to find their way around the control panel of Windows 98? Well IE, Media Player, and Office don't necessarily come into play here. Remember I'm talking about the OS as a whole mimicking Windows, not necessarily each and every application being cloned for it. That software could be installed and run thanks to Windows compatability if necessary. As far as taking too long to develop, it took 5 years between XP and Vista, and with what's come out of MS about future OSes smelling a lot like vapourware at this point I can see another 5 years before the next. I think that's ample time to release what I'm proposing, providing developers recognize the opportunity this OS provides for FOSS as a whole and step up to meet the challenge. Remember it'd still be under an open source licence so it's not like all open source code ever written is out the window. As far as the Windows 98 comment, why would Windows 98 be the Windows to mimic? Vista or XP seem the obvious choice.
ReactOS may be the closest thing, I admit I haven't tried it yet. Definitely something I intend to look into.
The problem is they need someone there to present them with those options. If they don't know a guy who can do that for them then they're a bit stuck. Go into some popular PC shop and ask about Linux and chances are you'll be met by blank stares and guided towards the nearest Packard Bell or similar running Vista. OK, so there's websites like distrowatch.com that help but they all seem to assume some degree of knowledge. I'm looking at distrowatch.com right now and I don't see any clear button that says "Which OS is for me?" and leads them through a couple of simple questions and then provides them with an obvious answer or a big honking sign that says "download this if you want to replace Windows and don't really know what you're doing". Sure it's ridiculous and patronising to anyone who's ever used Linux before but you've got to consider that a the Windows user might not even be clear on what a distribution or "distro" is.
I don't think the cellphone comparison works. Firstly because although the handsets might be different there are only a couple of OS'es on each and that's rarely even considered by the buyer. The non-technical phone user probably doesn't care about the OS running because as cellphones they're generally simplified to the point of being pretty intuitive in terms of arrow keys controlling basic menus etc., the nmon-technical user is more concerned with the fashionable phone, the one with the best camera (ie. the one with the higher Megapixel number) or the most memory. These terms are understandable (bigger number == better) and workable, unfortunately it doesn't work that way for OS distributions.
True. Some people don't care about Windows users liking it. But then you also can't complain when games aren't readily available for non-Windows systems or that hardware manufacturers don't always make open source/Linux drivers. And sure you can argue all you want that companies should be doing those things regardless, but the cold hard truth of the matter is that those things are only likely to happen when Linux or another Free OS hits the mainstream and it becomes clearly financially beneficial for companies to do those things. And hitting the mainstream means enticing Windows users.
Of course maybe you don't care about games and maybe you've never been affected by hardware compatability issues, but I'd say that you'd be in the minority in that case.
Because the non-Windows would be cheaper? Yes. Not simply that though. Although I said it wouldn't have to be more secure than Windows I meant this in terms of policies, remember the code itself is still more capable of being secure (time for the "more eyes, more fixes" theory to be put to the test) and of course there are other benefits of free software that could be expected such as no Genuine Advantage, no more being at Microsoft's mercy to be required to install what they want you to in order to be able to install security fixes. Things like Vista's more draconian "anti-piracy measures" too. Basically, Windows without the cost and without the Evil Empire thing.
The trouble is that Ubuntu is again Linux. And just like Windows users, Linux users have their own expectations of their environment aswell. I'd imagine that the people who didn't like it weren't the guys just converting (if nothing else they wouldn't have known the change had been made to complain about) they were the ones who'd grown to expect those directories to be visible. I believe it'll take a new (or previously unpopular) OS to really make a proper go of this and not be held back with half-measures to try and please everyone as Linux typically is.
Bear in mind that none of my ranting here is suggesting we replace Linux or that Linux is bad, just that I don't believe it's the most effective route for a viable short-term competitor to desktop MS Windows.
What I believe fits the bill is an OS that can basically mimic Windows down to everything but the trademarks and patents. Something that a Windows user can install and use and, barring aforementioned trademarks, not notice that they weren't using Windows anymore. It shouldn't have the multiple window managers of Linux, it needn't have better security than Windows*, it just needs to be Free, it just needs to abstract/emulate/virtualise Windows for software compatability, and simply be WindowsButForTheName. This OS will no doubt be seen as an affront to the FOSS Gods by Linux users. That doesn't matter. It's not for them. It's for Windows users. Remember that free software is all about choice; this OS doesn't have to be the greatest OS ever - in fact thats basically impossible given the "Be Like Windows" mantra, it is quite simply a choice. The first step towards breaking the Windows monopoly and for many users the first step perhaps towards Linux or another Free OS. The first step thing is important I think. The desktop Linux idea is nice but I think it tries to do too much too fast for many Windows users. Instead of thinking of Windows->PerfectFossOS as a great divide I'm proposing that the most effective way to get people across is a set of stepping stone OSes where people can cross gradually. Perhaps some never make it all the way across. Doesn't matter, so long as it's their choice.
*: Yeah I know. Don't lynch me. I'm not saying it should be insecure by design, but to correctly mimic Windows sacrifices in security will probably be inevitable. Given that it's intention is to subvert Windows the fact that's it's not more secure isn't a problem to the World as a whole.
No. That's exactly the point of the article/question. There are far more than 3 alternatives, it is simply that the only Free alternative that ever gets any real attention is Linux, both from mainstream media and from open source developers.
One of the main problems with Linux is the vast number of distributions, all subtly - and often pointlessly - different. While I can understand the reason for why this happens and why it represents what a lot of people like about Linux, you also have to understand that it is one of the reasons that prospective Windows converts don't like it. So many choices, which one should they pick? Which is better between KDE, Gnome, XFCE, etc.? They don't know, and beyond a few fanboys for each nobody else does either because in all honesty none are truly better than the other. And while that's just wonderful for the guy who knows which is best for him, it's just another choice that the clueless average guy has to make blindly and another reason for him to go scampering back to that othe OS where there's no choices, just familiarity and stuff that works (more or less).
Unfortunately I think that if another non-Linux OS were to become popular developer-wise it might turn out the same way. More developers, more conflicting opinions, more forks. I think ultimately the succesful free OS might be one that's put together by a small core of developers who are able to make one solid desktop operating system. No "light version", no "enterprise version", no separate distributions, just one clearly branded and defined OS with all the requisite compatability and virtualisation to make other OS'es programs run on it.
Going slightly offtopic here but I think another issue with Linux is that it's not doing enough to bridge the gap for Windows users to jump ship. It's coming from the other side of the idealogical void from Windows and it seems too self-involved with it's "I'm Free and proud" baggage to really make something that's practical for Windows users to move onto. I'm not talking about applications here, I mean little things. The filesystem of course is one thing that instantly sets the two apart,/usr,/tmp,/etc, - these mean absolutely nothing to the guy that's been looking at c:\windows, c:\program files, c:\documents and settings, since school. I realise that those folder names have changed somewhat in different versions of Windows but they're always recognizable and while no doubt some of you are saying "so what, it's not important", you're wrong, it does matter. Yes it's a tiny thing. Yes it doesn't matter in the big picture sense. But yes, it is important. The little things like this are what makes an OS feel like home to a user and if the FOSS crowd really truly want to take people away from Windows they're going to have to wake up and realise that./someOS,/programs,/settings anyone?
This isn't an anti-Linux rant. It's more of a Stop Thinking Outside The Box rant. Outside the box stuff scares people. Get back in the box and think how normal people think dammit.
Indeed. Except I did recently visit the USA and it's pretty damn annoying to think where my fingerprints and x amount of other "items of information" are kept on some database available to the US government and whoever they choose to share it with. Seeing as I've never been charged or arrested for any crime even the British police don't have my fingerprints. Well, maybe they do now - I wouldn't be surprised if the information collected is being sold to various agencies by the Americans in the same way spammers sell databases of email addresses.
I would've said SSD stood for Solid State Drive. Either is acceptable I guess.
In that case I'll allow "flash hard disks" too. But still, I'm holding firm on the "magnetic" part - we've got to have some boundaries. Until MRAM drives come along...
Flash Hard Drive Vendor: "Ah, but 1,000,000,000 bytes does equal a GB. I presume you're thinking of a GiB. No, no, silly man, it is the Operating System that is reporting incorrect units."
Seriously though, I hope you're right. Somehow I think it's wishful thinking though. With these devices still lagging way behind HDDs in capacity terms I can see this as a non-decision for the corporate guys as a way to make up some ground cost-free.
The disks themselves aren't hard (hence "floppy"). More importantly though is that "hard drive" has a specific purpose terminology-wise that a floppy disk doesn't fulfill, but this current technology does. I'd rather have a slightly dubious name for this technology that didn't require me to explain to everyone what it does and that just might help the uptake of these things. This has been a long time coming and if a practical flash-based alternative to traditional HDDs is in sight then I'll gladly call them "iPokemo-flash" if that's what it takes to get these things mass market acceptance (and lower prices) quickly.
Can you stop calling them "flash hard drives"? They are precisely not hard drives, but flash drives. It is like saying "liquid crystal cathode ray tube" or "electric internal combustion engine". What's wrong with flash hard drives? They're flash, they're hard (I've yet to see a flash drive that was spongy), and they're drives. This is nothing like your other two examples because this one is still accurate. Now, if they'd called them "flash hard disks" or "flash magnetic disk" or something ridiculous you'd have a point. As it is, flash hard drive is both accurate and useful since by using the same terminology as current hard drives makes it easier for the average user to get their head around it's purpose.
Worst spams:
* Green Card Lottery
* Air Force fugitive GIF Ahh... not a nigerian prince or wang enhancer in sight. Truly, a simpler age...
I also love how "spams" is plural, as if back then there might have been a singular of "a spam". What a time to have been alive.
Right. The eradication of smallpox, polio and other little beasties; the improvements in energy; diagnosis of genetically caused problems and mapping the human genome; astrophysical, geological, chemical, and other hard scientific advancements... Well, you get the picture. Only someone with long-term memory problems (or, maybe, a political agenda) would make a statement such as "The major drive of science in the last century was war". Well ignoring the fact that the scientific methods behind vaccination that allowed diseases, smallpox in particular, to be eradicated were developed in the 18th century, not the 20th. And also overlooking that polio in fact has not been eradicated yet, allow me to make myself clear since clearly at least one person couldn't understand my point: I can't speak for others but the things that make me optimistic are the things that will have an effect on my life and the lives of my children. While medicine may fit that bill, it is only one area of science and certainly one that has ultimately benefitted a great deal from some of the least pleasant circumstances of the 20th century. Astrophysics hasn't done much for me lately - how about you? Meanwhile the means by which I work, play, travel, communicate, and generally live my life have all been fundamentally changed by technologies and fields of research founded on the back of conflict and global mistrust. I never said all scientific progress in the 20th century is directly a result of war, I said it was the major drive. And what political agenda do you think I'm pushing here? Pro-war? Anti-war - anti-science? Anti-American? Or are you just so egotistical and self-righteous to believe that in some way this was all a jab at you, whoever you are.
That we need to correct problems our ancestors didn't foresee because of lack of data? Boo-friggin-hoo. Once you set the standard of perfection, get back with your criticisms. Criticisms? Way to fit my words to your misguided sense of outrage. Go back and read my post and tell me where I made any judgement of "our ancestors". I made a simple statement that what's been done needs fixing and somewhere in your little head you've turned it into condemnation. Spout your vitriol in your own posts if you want but don't try and bring me into it.
The major drive of science in the last century was war. In this century it seems some of the most important science will be in trying to resolve the issues caused by our "optimistic" science of the past 100+ years. What I hope for the future is that we succeed in saving ourselves from ourselves. I'm not optimistic.
OK so Fiji is a stop-gap measure, let's face it none of the things listed there are going to make people rush out and buy it - more than likely anyone who wants those things will have already got them via third-party apps long before this ever sees the light of day. It's of little relevance.
Vienna, as it's described in TFA, seems unlikely to happen. As the article tells it, it's basically replacing all visual interface for speech-recognition. Huh? If this is intended to be the next proper OS from Microsoft and they're talking about it not being another delay-ridden feature-stripped letdown then I can only presume we're looking at a 2011-2012 release for this at latest? In order for speech-recognition to work as the primary interface for an OS, as in the thing you'll be working with all day long, it's going to have some bitchin' speech-recognition. We're talking HAL9000-style in terms of ability to understand the context of what someone's saying and whether they're speaking to the machine or to someone else in the room. So is the hardware to do all that going to be around by 2012? I doubt it very much. In short, if TFA is accurate in it's description and I haven't misunderstood, Vienna looks like vapourware.
A far more likely (IMO) future for Microsoft is the non-Windows MS-WebOS that they've hinted at as being the future of computing. Not because it's good for the consumer, far from it. Because it's good for Microsoft. As each version of Windows comes around it gets more and more complex and expensive to create, it takes longer to build and each time it gets more stable and secure. Windows being genuinely stable and secure is bad for business - why would anyone update their OS if the one they've had for the last five years is still running fine and the hardware can still do everything they need (which 5yr old hardware generally can these days). Point being that since the death of Win9x, Microsoft have reached a base level of security and stability that actually has them competing with their own products with each new release. Far better for them then to talk-up the future as being Web-based desktops so that they can pull out a Microsoft-WebOS that has Windows compatibility and can be charged as a service instead of a product. That way they can effectively guarantee a long-term income with a monthly service charge instead of having to compete with themselves.
Of course this is all rabid speculation and assumptions and I'm probably 100% wrong about everything etc. etc.
The difference is that there's always the possibility for market change in three or fours years time. With virtualisation becoming more and more prominent the clear Windows->Windows upgrade path is becoming blurred by the possibility that some other OS can match or beat Windows in other areas (price, lower hardware requirements, simply better at something, etc.) and still support the legacy systems that the companies need to run.
It might sound like wishful thinking, and honestly I don't see a free OS taking over the commercial sector in the next three or four years, however for every year that a company doesn't move to Vista is another year that other OSes have to catch up and make a case for switching to them. A free OS with full Windows compatability and cheap vendor support would look pretty damn appealing to a lot of companies.
Do any companies ever upgrade immediately? It's stupid from the point of view of application support (for any OS upgrade/update there'll almost always be a few issues to be fixed) and there's no clear advantage. My last job was working in an office at a major company, yet they only upgraded from NT to XP in late 2004/early 2005, at the same time as they upgraded all the hardware. That's a little over 3 years after XP's release. I expect the same will happen with Vista. The next time they replace the workstations in 3-4 years they'll shift to Vista aswell. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than switching now and having to upgrade the hardware at the same time.
And of course this doesn't even begin to account for legacy software. In that job we were still using software originally written and deployed in the 70's, software that's damn hard to replace because the original COBOL coders are all long gone and nobody really has any idea how to migrate properly. Ridiculous amounts of money (millions) were spent getting this stuff to run on XP through emulators, you can be damn sure they're not gonna want to spend that kind of money again to get it to run on Vista until they absolutely have to.
It's a similar situation for home users. Very few people actually go out and buy Windows, they just use whatever OS comes with the hardware when they buy that. Given that computers are reaching a point where you no longer need to buy a whole new one every few years, is this going to affect the uptake of Vista? I mean I'm currently writing this on a Athlon XP 2400+, it's five years old yet it can easily accomodate any task I can throw at it. I'd say it's still got another couple of years in it yet, so what exactly happens to Vista's sales if everyone but the hardcore-gamers buy new systems running Vista on a seven year turnaround?
You've got indie game development, WarGames references, game modding including ASM code on the linked webpage. How geek does it need to be?
Contrast that to some of the other posts today:
Review of the graphics on a demo of Gran Turismo HD.
GNUStep gets a new chief maintainer.
Yet another speculative article about an Apple iPhone.
While this article may not matter in the larger sense, it beats 90% of the other slashdot articles hands-down for nerd relevance.
Slashdot Mirror
Calm down. It's only a game.
Notice I said "typically" and "you" as in the average player. Sure, some people never played it at the hardest setting, so what? They're games, they're supposed to be fun. Sometimes I played it on expert and occasionally I just wanted to be a bastard and kill every single enemy. You know, play the game, not just move through it at the hardest setting checking off levels like it's some kind of task to be completed.
Even if you played to kill it was never going to be Quake-like since outright battling would inveitably lead to your death so the stealth element wasn't lost, just lessened.
That's true. Although in Thief there was a very limited number of enemies in any one mission (usually no more than 20 IIRC) and typically you wouldn't kill more than a couple of people so there was never an issue of the system being overwhelmed by too many bodies.
Is there that much HD porn content available online? I'm sure it's available in some places but generally the sheer size of HD content is enough to stretch even modern broadband's limits and I don't think it's as nearly prevalent as porn at standard resolutions. With that in mind the porn endorsement is perhaps still a pretty big deal in the format wars. Depends how serious people are about their porn I guess.
Everything in this post is based on what a friend told me...
I'll apologise in advance for typos and grammatical errors on this one. It's 2am here.
ReactOS may be the closest thing, I admit I haven't tried it yet. Definitely something I intend to look into.
The problem is they need someone there to present them with those options. If they don't know a guy who can do that for them then they're a bit stuck. Go into some popular PC shop and ask about Linux and chances are you'll be met by blank stares and guided towards the nearest Packard Bell or similar running Vista. OK, so there's websites like distrowatch.com that help but they all seem to assume some degree of knowledge. I'm looking at distrowatch.com right now and I don't see any clear button that says "Which OS is for me?" and leads them through a couple of simple questions and then provides them with an obvious answer or a big honking sign that says "download this if you want to replace Windows and don't really know what you're doing". Sure it's ridiculous and patronising to anyone who's ever used Linux before but you've got to consider that a the Windows user might not even be clear on what a distribution or "distro" is.
I don't think the cellphone comparison works. Firstly because although the handsets might be different there are only a couple of OS'es on each and that's rarely even considered by the buyer. The non-technical phone user probably doesn't care about the OS running because as cellphones they're generally simplified to the point of being pretty intuitive in terms of arrow keys controlling basic menus etc., the nmon-technical user is more concerned with the fashionable phone, the one with the best camera (ie. the one with the higher Megapixel number) or the most memory. These terms are understandable (bigger number == better) and workable, unfortunately it doesn't work that way for OS distributions.
True. Some people don't care about Windows users liking it. But then you also can't complain when games aren't readily available for non-Windows systems or that hardware manufacturers don't always make open source/Linux drivers. And sure you can argue all you want that companies should be doing those things regardless, but the cold hard truth of the matter is that those things are only likely to happen when Linux or another Free OS hits the mainstream and it becomes clearly financially beneficial for companies to do those things. And hitting the mainstream means enticing Windows users.
Of course maybe you don't care about games and maybe you've never been affected by hardware compatability issues, but I'd say that you'd be in the minority in that case.
The trouble is that Ubuntu is again Linux. And just like Windows users, Linux users have their own expectations of their environment aswell. I'd imagine that the people who didn't like it weren't the guys just converting (if nothing else they wouldn't have known the change had been made to complain about) they were the ones who'd grown to expect those directories to be visible. I believe it'll take a new (or previously unpopular) OS to really make a proper go of this and not be held back with half-measures to try and please everyone as Linux typically is.
Bear in mind that none of my ranting here is suggesting we replace Linux or that Linux is bad, just that I don't believe it's the most effective route for a viable short-term competitor to desktop MS Windows.
What I believe fits the bill is an OS that can basically mimic Windows down to everything but the trademarks and patents. Something that a Windows user can install and use and, barring aforementioned trademarks, not notice that they weren't using Windows anymore. It shouldn't have the multiple window managers of Linux, it needn't have better security than Windows*, it just needs to be Free, it just needs to abstract/emulate/virtualise Windows for software compatability, and simply be WindowsButForTheName. This OS will no doubt be seen as an affront to the FOSS Gods by Linux users. That doesn't matter. It's not for them. It's for Windows users. Remember that free software is all about choice; this OS doesn't have to be the greatest OS ever - in fact thats basically impossible given the "Be Like Windows" mantra, it is quite simply a choice. The first step towards breaking the Windows monopoly and for many users the first step perhaps towards Linux or another Free OS. The first step thing is important I think. The desktop Linux idea is nice but I think it tries to do too much too fast for many Windows users. Instead of thinking of Windows->PerfectFossOS as a great divide I'm proposing that the most effective way to get people across is a set of stepping stone OSes where people can cross gradually. Perhaps some never make it all the way across. Doesn't matter, so long as it's their choice.
*: Yeah I know. Don't lynch me. I'm not saying it should be insecure by design, but to correctly mimic Windows sacrifices in security will probably be inevitable. Given that it's intention is to subvert Windows the fact that's it's not more secure isn't a problem to the World as a whole.
No. That's exactly the point of the article/question. There are far more than 3 alternatives, it is simply that the only Free alternative that ever gets any real attention is Linux, both from mainstream media and from open source developers.
/usr, /tmp, /etc, - these mean absolutely nothing to the guy that's been looking at c:\windows, c:\program files, c:\documents and settings, since school. I realise that those folder names have changed somewhat in different versions of Windows but they're always recognizable and while no doubt some of you are saying "so what, it's not important", you're wrong, it does matter. Yes it's a tiny thing. Yes it doesn't matter in the big picture sense. But yes, it is important. The little things like this are what makes an OS feel like home to a user and if the FOSS crowd really truly want to take people away from Windows they're going to have to wake up and realise that. /someOS , /programs, /settings anyone?
One of the main problems with Linux is the vast number of distributions, all subtly - and often pointlessly - different. While I can understand the reason for why this happens and why it represents what a lot of people like about Linux, you also have to understand that it is one of the reasons that prospective Windows converts don't like it. So many choices, which one should they pick? Which is better between KDE, Gnome, XFCE, etc.? They don't know, and beyond a few fanboys for each nobody else does either because in all honesty none are truly better than the other. And while that's just wonderful for the guy who knows which is best for him, it's just another choice that the clueless average guy has to make blindly and another reason for him to go scampering back to that othe OS where there's no choices, just familiarity and stuff that works (more or less).
Unfortunately I think that if another non-Linux OS were to become popular developer-wise it might turn out the same way. More developers, more conflicting opinions, more forks. I think ultimately the succesful free OS might be one that's put together by a small core of developers who are able to make one solid desktop operating system. No "light version", no "enterprise version", no separate distributions, just one clearly branded and defined OS with all the requisite compatability and virtualisation to make other OS'es programs run on it.
Going slightly offtopic here but I think another issue with Linux is that it's not doing enough to bridge the gap for Windows users to jump ship. It's coming from the other side of the idealogical void from Windows and it seems too self-involved with it's "I'm Free and proud" baggage to really make something that's practical for Windows users to move onto. I'm not talking about applications here, I mean little things. The filesystem of course is one thing that instantly sets the two apart,
This isn't an anti-Linux rant. It's more of a Stop Thinking Outside The Box rant. Outside the box stuff scares people. Get back in the box and think how normal people think dammit.
Indeed. Except I did recently visit the USA and it's pretty damn annoying to think where my fingerprints and x amount of other "items of information" are kept on some database available to the US government and whoever they choose to share it with. Seeing as I've never been charged or arrested for any crime even the British police don't have my fingerprints. Well, maybe they do now - I wouldn't be surprised if the information collected is being sold to various agencies by the Americans in the same way spammers sell databases of email addresses.
I would've said SSD stood for Solid State Drive. Either is acceptable I guess.
In that case I'll allow "flash hard disks" too. But still, I'm holding firm on the "magnetic" part - we've got to have some boundaries. Until MRAM drives come along...
Flash Hard Drive Vendor: "Ah, but 1,000,000,000 bytes does equal a GB. I presume you're thinking of a GiB. No, no, silly man, it is the Operating System that is reporting incorrect units."
Seriously though, I hope you're right. Somehow I think it's wishful thinking though. With these devices still lagging way behind HDDs in capacity terms I can see this as a non-decision for the corporate guys as a way to make up some ground cost-free.
The disks themselves aren't hard (hence "floppy"). More importantly though is that "hard drive" has a specific purpose terminology-wise that a floppy disk doesn't fulfill, but this current technology does. I'd rather have a slightly dubious name for this technology that didn't require me to explain to everyone what it does and that just might help the uptake of these things. This has been a long time coming and if a practical flash-based alternative to traditional HDDs is in sight then I'll gladly call them "iPokemo-flash" if that's what it takes to get these things mass market acceptance (and lower prices) quickly.
The major drive of science in the last century was war. In this century it seems some of the most important science will be in trying to resolve the issues caused by our "optimistic" science of the past 100+ years. What I hope for the future is that we succeed in saving ourselves from ourselves. I'm not optimistic.
OK so Fiji is a stop-gap measure, let's face it none of the things listed there are going to make people rush out and buy it - more than likely anyone who wants those things will have already got them via third-party apps long before this ever sees the light of day. It's of little relevance.
Vienna, as it's described in TFA, seems unlikely to happen. As the article tells it, it's basically replacing all visual interface for speech-recognition. Huh? If this is intended to be the next proper OS from Microsoft and they're talking about it not being another delay-ridden feature-stripped letdown then I can only presume we're looking at a 2011-2012 release for this at latest? In order for speech-recognition to work as the primary interface for an OS, as in the thing you'll be working with all day long, it's going to have some bitchin' speech-recognition. We're talking HAL9000-style in terms of ability to understand the context of what someone's saying and whether they're speaking to the machine or to someone else in the room. So is the hardware to do all that going to be around by 2012? I doubt it very much. In short, if TFA is accurate in it's description and I haven't misunderstood, Vienna looks like vapourware.
A far more likely (IMO) future for Microsoft is the non-Windows MS-WebOS that they've hinted at as being the future of computing. Not because it's good for the consumer, far from it. Because it's good for Microsoft. As each version of Windows comes around it gets more and more complex and expensive to create, it takes longer to build and each time it gets more stable and secure. Windows being genuinely stable and secure is bad for business - why would anyone update their OS if the one they've had for the last five years is still running fine and the hardware can still do everything they need (which 5yr old hardware generally can these days). Point being that since the death of Win9x, Microsoft have reached a base level of security and stability that actually has them competing with their own products with each new release. Far better for them then to talk-up the future as being Web-based desktops so that they can pull out a Microsoft-WebOS that has Windows compatibility and can be charged as a service instead of a product. That way they can effectively guarantee a long-term income with a monthly service charge instead of having to compete with themselves.
Of course this is all rabid speculation and assumptions and I'm probably 100% wrong about everything etc. etc.
The difference is that there's always the possibility for market change in three or fours years time. With virtualisation becoming more and more prominent the clear Windows->Windows upgrade path is becoming blurred by the possibility that some other OS can match or beat Windows in other areas (price, lower hardware requirements, simply better at something, etc.) and still support the legacy systems that the companies need to run.
It might sound like wishful thinking, and honestly I don't see a free OS taking over the commercial sector in the next three or four years, however for every year that a company doesn't move to Vista is another year that other OSes have to catch up and make a case for switching to them. A free OS with full Windows compatability and cheap vendor support would look pretty damn appealing to a lot of companies.
...land an iPod on Mars.
Do any companies ever upgrade immediately? It's stupid from the point of view of application support (for any OS upgrade/update there'll almost always be a few issues to be fixed) and there's no clear advantage. My last job was working in an office at a major company, yet they only upgraded from NT to XP in late 2004/early 2005, at the same time as they upgraded all the hardware. That's a little over 3 years after XP's release. I expect the same will happen with Vista. The next time they replace the workstations in 3-4 years they'll shift to Vista aswell. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than switching now and having to upgrade the hardware at the same time.
And of course this doesn't even begin to account for legacy software. In that job we were still using software originally written and deployed in the 70's, software that's damn hard to replace because the original COBOL coders are all long gone and nobody really has any idea how to migrate properly. Ridiculous amounts of money (millions) were spent getting this stuff to run on XP through emulators, you can be damn sure they're not gonna want to spend that kind of money again to get it to run on Vista until they absolutely have to.
It's a similar situation for home users. Very few people actually go out and buy Windows, they just use whatever OS comes with the hardware when they buy that. Given that computers are reaching a point where you no longer need to buy a whole new one every few years, is this going to affect the uptake of Vista? I mean I'm currently writing this on a Athlon XP 2400+, it's five years old yet it can easily accomodate any task I can throw at it. I'd say it's still got another couple of years in it yet, so what exactly happens to Vista's sales if everyone but the hardcore-gamers buy new systems running Vista on a seven year turnaround?
You've got indie game development, WarGames references, game modding including ASM code on the linked webpage. How geek does it need to be?
Contrast that to some of the other posts today: Review of the graphics on a demo of Gran Turismo HD. GNUStep gets a new chief maintainer. Yet another speculative article about an Apple iPhone.
While this article may not matter in the larger sense, it beats 90% of the other slashdot articles hands-down for nerd relevance.
I never said we need to protect it, just that we shouldn't go around killing it in an attempt to study it if we have no real clue about the numbers.