The Pirate Bay is under attack: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080131/tot-uk-piratebay-charge-b86c26b_1.html
AT&T is talking of filtering file sharing: http://www.out-law.com/page-8804
There is some hope of sanity from the Swedish: http://sigfrid.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/decriminalize-file-sharing/
Mark Pesce (co-inventor of VRML) is talking sense too: http://www.mindjack.com/feature/piracy051305.html
The momentum seams to be slowly building on both sides.
Personally, I loved the AllOfMp3.com model. Cheap enough and good enough service I was prepared to pay, it wasn't worth copying. It had me spending money on music in what I thought was a legal way, for the first time in a long time. The existing model is to expensive and how can it be justified to charged what you would for a cd for something where the manufacture and distribution costs are pretty much zero?
As long as we can record video and sound, we can copy and copy and copy and copy. Best work with the technology not against it. Make it cheap enough and good enough we can't be bothered to copy most of the time. What you would lose on individual sales, you gain on bulk, plus you can make money from advertising.
If there is a big clamp down, what really worries me is the politics of it. International big business wins out over the people. Surely this is what governments are for? We vote a government in that fosters a society we want to live in. But, in the UK at least, I can't see any party picking up this issue. Which is crazy, because as more and more of the internet generation comes to voting age it's an issue close to their hearts! 10 years time could it be an election winner?
I want to see what is connected to what in a nice clear visual way, i.e wires.
I want soild connections, i.e. wires.
I want secure connections I could see no one else is using, i.e wires.
I see OS X as a good easy introduction into the world of Unix. So much that runs on Linux runs on OS X and vice-versa that the growth of either benifits both (and other Unixs).
Linux isn't going anywhere and I'm convident that fully open source will win out in the end.
This sounds familiar, sounds something like what happened at the middleware company I use to work at. New programmers came in, said the old API was shit, started again from scratch. It learnt nothing from the old code, ignored customers, and when we where bought out, our buyer realised after trying to use the new API for probably too long, it was all a mess and killed it. (Not going to say more because I'm not sure what ground I stand on....)
But my dad also works in software, and well before this happened to me, he told me about a cycle of code maturing, then new programmers coming in, saying it was all shit,starting again and it taking years for product to mature again. And round and round it goes.
Has this happened before, a mass downgrading from the latest Windows to the previous version?
Have to say, not to my knowledge.
Many people have said this happens with every new version of Windows.
Really?
I personally wasn't happy with going from 2k to XP because XP didn't add anything and was all cute/telly tubby and was a bit slower. Like many, after being on 2K became a problem I moved (on work machines you don't always have a choice), I moaned but that was it. Once I turned off all the crap I was fine.
From 9x to NT even though it was a big step I don't think there where many people thinking twice. NT was without question much much better/stable.
But with Vista things do seam to be happening differently. As a programmer I'm noticing lots of min operating system : Vista for API calls in msdn that would be useful, so there is good stuff there. But there is the huge shadow of compatibility and poor performance which means work isn't even thinking of moving. Personal users fear the DRM and anti piracy tech, not to mention bad performance.
The only thing I can see to resolve this is MS starting to take the stuff users don't want out. That already seams to be happening with the removing of the kill switch.
CUPS's could do with the investment and work, it's in Apple's interest this is done.
As long as it's all done in a generic unix way, everyone wins.
Apple probably bought it mostly to stop someone else buying it. Just protecting themselves.
If you like this topic, you really should read the Mars trilogy, or at least the first one (the second half of the third feels a bit rushed).
I'd go. New society without any existing people being murdered. Maybe we can get it right this time, or at least less wrong.;-)
Be easier because only the flexible versions of religions would come over.
> Really, windows is fairly similar in that respect - to really get into tweaking/tuning/fixing it, you need to break out registry editor, group policy, etc.
My point was you get to into tweaking/tuning/fixing much quicker with Linux then Windows.
> 99.9% of windows users could switch/get by with an installshield type application installer (which already exists for linux in the form of GUI/X based.deb or.rpm package managers), a browser, and an office suite.
> For the 0.1% of techs left fixing the shit they break, dealing with linux/*nix is much less painful in my opinion...
Maybe, but I'm not convinced. Don't get me wrong, I really like linux, but it is a bit of a steep learning curve. I've been programming since I was a child (BBC BASIC on RiscOS then, I now work in C/C++ in Windows/tools/games). I don't count myself as the average computer user, and I still hit stuff I think "that could be much easier", or even "that's just broken". Though "that's just broken" is often on Windows too! Even RiscOS! No undelete, long file names, unlimited contents in a folder, etc etc (without custom software, at least when I use to use it). Quick and easy though...
Every OS sucks!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2514730680 283477734
I think you can really make an argument that Linux/GNU could be simpler.
Sure, with a good distro and standard hardware, it can be a very easy install. If then you just use it with OpenOffice and Firefox you going to have a very easy time of it.
How ever, all Linux users know of the pain of leaving the well trodden path. Before you know it there are many ways of setting the same thing, and often you end up just editing a text configuration file because the dialogs don't agree!
I'm ok with that, give me text files over a registry any day. I like that I can read what the options and set them directly.
BUT
Now I'm no MS fan boy (I'm a RiscOS refugee), but I think that is a bit much to ask for of the average user. They don't care how it works and how pretty the guts are, they don't want to see guts, they are squeamish.
Windows is easier to use.
I've never used MaxOS-X but I have used MacOS and that was easy, so making it Unix too can only make it better.
(And of course RiscOS had many good interface ideas ahead of it's time!;-) )
The thing that would make Linux easier is standardization. Too much duplicated effort and different takes on the same thing. That's great for us geeks and maybe the product evolution, but very scary for the average user.
Another big problem is interface design.
Each thing should have a clean simple interface with the most common used options. All the extra advanced stuff should be hidden away under an "advanced" rollout or something. Most Linux settings tools just give you everything because it was by advanced users for advanced users.
I don't think everyone understands the argument here. There is a problem with closed source drivers. It's not just ideology.
Closed source drivers means you can end up with no drivers for a device for your version of the kernel. Even if drivers for some different kernel version exists. A good example of this is old devices. If the manufacturer still exists, they probably don't care to do the work to update drivers for a device they no longer sell.
Maybe there should be a device/kernel interface that stays the same for all time, but I think as a rule, people want the best interface possible, with open source drivers so devices can be kept up.
You then of course get the advantage of open source so you can fix/work-round bugs (or improve it!).
I see where you are coming from. But it's a little hash. I don't think my parents would have a problem with Linux, not for word processing and web browsing, as long as there is drivers for everything.....
But I do think there is a problem with Linux software as long as software for it is made by people in their spare time. To be profession it has to be done professionally. I'm not saying people shouldn't add stuff done in their spare time, just that software needs people full time, filling in feature holes, fixing bugs and making it easy to use. So free open software, great, but done for money so it can be done full time.
Slashdot Mirror
The Pirate Bay is under attack: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080131/tot-uk-piratebay-charge-b86c26b_1.html AT&T is talking of filtering file sharing: http://www.out-law.com/page-8804 There is some hope of sanity from the Swedish: http://sigfrid.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/decriminalize-file-sharing/ Mark Pesce (co-inventor of VRML) is talking sense too: http://www.mindjack.com/feature/piracy051305.html The momentum seams to be slowly building on both sides. Personally, I loved the AllOfMp3.com model. Cheap enough and good enough service I was prepared to pay, it wasn't worth copying. It had me spending money on music in what I thought was a legal way, for the first time in a long time. The existing model is to expensive and how can it be justified to charged what you would for a cd for something where the manufacture and distribution costs are pretty much zero? As long as we can record video and sound, we can copy and copy and copy and copy. Best work with the technology not against it. Make it cheap enough and good enough we can't be bothered to copy most of the time. What you would lose on individual sales, you gain on bulk, plus you can make money from advertising. If there is a big clamp down, what really worries me is the politics of it. International big business wins out over the people. Surely this is what governments are for? We vote a government in that fosters a society we want to live in. But, in the UK at least, I can't see any party picking up this issue. Which is crazy, because as more and more of the internet generation comes to voting age it's an issue close to their hearts! 10 years time could it be an election winner?
My mobile phone doesn't work in the house, guess what, I use the land line!
I want to see what is connected to what in a nice clear visual way, i.e wires. I want soild connections, i.e. wires. I want secure connections I could see no one else is using, i.e wires.
I see OS X as a good easy introduction into the world of Unix. So much that runs on Linux runs on OS X and vice-versa that the growth of either benifits both (and other Unixs). Linux isn't going anywhere and I'm convident that fully open source will win out in the end.
This sounds familiar, sounds something like what happened at the middleware company I use to work at. New programmers came in, said the old API was shit, started again from scratch. It learnt nothing from the old code, ignored customers, and when we where bought out, our buyer realised after trying to use the new API for probably too long, it was all a mess and killed it. (Not going to say more because I'm not sure what ground I stand on....) But my dad also works in software, and well before this happened to me, he told me about a cycle of code maturing, then new programmers coming in, saying it was all shit ,starting again and it taking years for product to mature again. And round and round it goes.
Has this happened before, a mass downgrading from the latest Windows to the previous version? Have to say, not to my knowledge. Many people have said this happens with every new version of Windows. Really? I personally wasn't happy with going from 2k to XP because XP didn't add anything and was all cute/telly tubby and was a bit slower. Like many, after being on 2K became a problem I moved (on work machines you don't always have a choice), I moaned but that was it. Once I turned off all the crap I was fine. From 9x to NT even though it was a big step I don't think there where many people thinking twice. NT was without question much much better/stable. But with Vista things do seam to be happening differently. As a programmer I'm noticing lots of min operating system : Vista for API calls in msdn that would be useful, so there is good stuff there. But there is the huge shadow of compatibility and poor performance which means work isn't even thinking of moving. Personal users fear the DRM and anti piracy tech, not to mention bad performance. The only thing I can see to resolve this is MS starting to take the stuff users don't want out. That already seams to be happening with the removing of the kill switch.
They started out the same, but Linus looks like he's moved on more, and with out picking up the air of some one unpleasant....
CUPS's could do with the investment and work, it's in Apple's interest this is done. As long as it's all done in a generic unix way, everyone wins. Apple probably bought it mostly to stop someone else buying it. Just protecting themselves.
If you like this topic, you really should read the Mars trilogy, or at least the first one (the second half of the third feels a bit rushed). I'd go. New society without any existing people being murdered. Maybe we can get it right this time, or at least less wrong. ;-)
Be easier because only the flexible versions of religions would come over.
You tried Codeblocks? Out of the free IDEs I've tried, I think it's the best, and it's crossplatform to boot. It even imports visual studio projects!
> Really, windows is fairly similar in that respect - to really get into tweaking/tuning/fixing it, you need to break out registry editor, group policy, etc. My point was you get to into tweaking/tuning/fixing much quicker with Linux then Windows. > 99.9% of windows users could switch/get by with an installshield type application installer (which already exists for linux in the form of GUI/X based .deb or .rpm package managers), a browser, and an office suite.
> For the 0.1% of techs left fixing the shit they break, dealing with linux/*nix is much less painful in my opinion...
Maybe, but I'm not convinced. Don't get me wrong, I really like linux, but it is a bit of a steep learning curve. I've been programming since I was a child (BBC BASIC on RiscOS then, I now work in C/C++ in Windows/tools/games). I don't count myself as the average computer user, and I still hit stuff I think "that could be much easier", or even "that's just broken". Though "that's just broken" is often on Windows too! Even RiscOS! No undelete, long file names, unlimited contents in a folder, etc etc (without custom software, at least when I use to use it). Quick and easy though...
Every OS sucks!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2514730680 283477734
I think you can really make an argument that Linux/GNU could be simpler. Sure, with a good distro and standard hardware, it can be a very easy install. If then you just use it with OpenOffice and Firefox you going to have a very easy time of it. How ever, all Linux users know of the pain of leaving the well trodden path. Before you know it there are many ways of setting the same thing, and often you end up just editing a text configuration file because the dialogs don't agree! I'm ok with that, give me text files over a registry any day. I like that I can read what the options and set them directly. BUT Now I'm no MS fan boy (I'm a RiscOS refugee), but I think that is a bit much to ask for of the average user. They don't care how it works and how pretty the guts are, they don't want to see guts, they are squeamish. Windows is easier to use. I've never used MaxOS-X but I have used MacOS and that was easy, so making it Unix too can only make it better. (And of course RiscOS had many good interface ideas ahead of it's time! ;-) )
The thing that would make Linux easier is standardization. Too much duplicated effort and different takes on the same thing. That's great for us geeks and maybe the product evolution, but very scary for the average user.
Another big problem is interface design.
Each thing should have a clean simple interface with the most common used options. All the extra advanced stuff should be hidden away under an "advanced" rollout or something. Most Linux settings tools just give you everything because it was by advanced users for advanced users.
I don't think everyone understands the argument here. There is a problem with closed source drivers. It's not just ideology. Closed source drivers means you can end up with no drivers for a device for your version of the kernel. Even if drivers for some different kernel version exists. A good example of this is old devices. If the manufacturer still exists, they probably don't care to do the work to update drivers for a device they no longer sell. Maybe there should be a device/kernel interface that stays the same for all time, but I think as a rule, people want the best interface possible, with open source drivers so devices can be kept up. You then of course get the advantage of open source so you can fix/work-round bugs (or improve it!).
I see where you are coming from. But it's a little hash. I don't think my parents would have a problem with Linux, not for word processing and web browsing, as long as there is drivers for everything..... But I do think there is a problem with Linux software as long as software for it is made by people in their spare time. To be profession it has to be done professionally. I'm not saying people shouldn't add stuff done in their spare time, just that software needs people full time, filling in feature holes, fixing bugs and making it easy to use. So free open software, great, but done for money so it can be done full time.