Don't bother. The people claiming that Ubuntu doesn't "just work" aren't eager to try it out for themselves. Instead they waste their time spreading hearsay and lies. Also people tend to forget that it's your own responsibility to check for hardware support before you install something, such as Linux. The same rule applies for Windows, OS X, a new windshield on your car, shoes that fit your feet, the list can be made infinite. So if you blame the OS for not being compatible with your hardware that you didn't bother to confirm before you bought it you're as dumb as someone who'd buy a Porche side mirror for an Audi before checking if it's compatible.
Sadly your lack of arguments leads to flamebaiting. However try lawsuits for ridiculous sums of money that do not reflect real loss of income. Its one thing to pay for your damages, but if you actually consider this fair then I can only hope someone shoots your kneecap off with a shotgun the next time you make an illegal turn or drive too fast. It's called excessive sentencing, hope you'll like it.
No not really, not at all actually. Corporate copyright holders have held a gun at the heads of a few threatening that anybody that does the same will be made an example of. This is not even remotely close to my bank example. They can't stop the methods because it would take an insane amount of restriction and surveillance, so they try the scare tactics. If the method was adapted to reality we wouldn't have had this discussion to begin with.
Also you know very damn well that people object to the fact that they are forced to be monitored just so that nobody shares files. This is a pretty big sacrifice we make for the entertainment industry and you seem to think that people brought it on themselves. Perhaps they did, but perhaps the entertainment industry did as well. Whatever methods are used today arecompletelyuseless, and to defend them isn't doing the entertainment industry nor their consumers any good. Nobody thinks music artists should be poor, at least nobody that enjoys music, since nobody would produce music if reality was as such. But the current structure is not the only possible one, and I'm damn sure that even the entertainment industry will abandon this fools errand sooner or later. Right now you're one of the responsible for keeping this natural transition at halt.
Um, maybe not in your Mom's basement, nor in your l337's friend's Mom's basements; but, in certain financial, government, academic, scientific and business circles it sure do!
If people constantly found ways to rob banks without implications there wouldn't be many banks left, would there? Instead there would be another solution that fits reality better. I don't know if you're trying to be funny or really using this as an argument, but if you're serious then you have to understand that if a method doesn't work, you need to rethink it and adapt it so that it does. The same goes with robbing banks. The very reason that we have banks left is because they've been adapted to reality. Bigger and more secure safes, security staff, panic buttons etc. The fact that avoiding getting caught filesharing is so easy means that something is wrong. Either we keep up this charade and try to limit internet without any results, or we adapt ourselves and our businesses to it and create new rules that can coexist with internet.
In all fairness I never claimed that these 5000 people were responsible for their entire revenue. There's probably been a lot of expense cuts as well, such as excessive material and marketing. I don't know if you work within a corporation or not but if you don't then I can tell you that probably every corporation on the face of this planet is undergoing savings strategies right now, and has been for a couple of months. Still I'm not saying that MS sales dropped to 0, I'm saying that MS is not untouched by the market turbulence. And all the savings in addition to the sales contribute to the revenue.
Of course you're right. By experiencing I meant anticipating, simply a bad choice of words from my side. However the fact that their revenue is solely based on these 5000 people was never my claim. This in addition to expense cuts, such as marketing expenses or material expenses etc., is how it is in reality. Also you have to keep in mind that the MS shareholders might be very disappointed with merely 1 billion for Q4 (which is, if you know business, always the best quarter). So perhaps you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. You can't assume that anything above 0 is necessarily good. You can't assume that anything above 1 billion is good neither. One thing is for sure, they fired 5000 people at once. This may not say how well Vista is selling but it does say a lot, and I think it's unfair to neglect it as irrelevant to "how well the company is doing".
You're assuming that the profit generated by every employee is collected at once. Software development is a long term investment and that whatever these 5000 employees produced was most likely done way before the market crash. Initially when these people were hired the revenue was big enough to support them while producing. Now Microsoft can instead focus on selling the products generated by these employees showing promising figures. This is a very common strategy and the only downside is that this will slow down production, but if production isn't in sync with market demand then there's no real downside. But lowered market demand is not good for any company, in the short term you can fend it off using said strategies, but in the long term you're forced to downsize operation. However the crash didn't affect MS for being MS, nor any other company. It affected the whole market tilting the real values. Most companies are just waiting it out like this since they know the market isn't reflecting actual demand.
The real problems come from confusingly bad articles like these
I wonder just how often this statement is true, or perhaps I should be careful with what I wish for. Some might say it's unfair to say but isn't it time journalism is rendered strictly as entertainment only? I mean sure there is occasionally some journalist that actually tries to report the truth, but it's really no secret that more often it's about luring readers to see the ads using sensational headlines and too often just plain lies.
The term "how well they're doing" is very vague. If you're talking about revenue then no, revenue and amount of jobs are not in direct corelation. If you're talking about market demand then yes, it indicates that the market demand is lower than expected which would render these 5000 employees unprofitable. It's really quite simple. If you own a company and notice that the workload is getting too large, you're in need of additional workforce, thus you hire new people. When the market demand for your product is lowered the workload is naturally also lowered, which renders some employees unprofitable, thus you fire them. During this period you could in theory provide the exact same fiscal revenue, given that these people niether cost nor earn the company anything. This is a very simplified example as there are many other aspects, such as material expenses, marketing expenses etc. and a more sober solution to it is of course a combination of cutting unnecessary expenses (material, marketing etc.) and fire unnecessary workforce.
So in my opinion it does reflect "how well they're doing" as revenue isn't the only factor to look for. What it doesn't indicate is exactly how well they're doing.
So you don't consider having to fire 5000 employees in order to continue providing positive figures a financial difficulty, I do. No need to continue this.
You know it's very simple. You bought an iPod, and you like iTunes. Good for you. What about those that bought an iPod and despise iTunes? It's one thing to support your device with software (mind you this is not the issue), it's another thing to lock out others looking to develop software for those that don't wish to use iTunes rendering them forced to use said application. The majority of those that initially bought an iPod had no clue they needed to use iTunes. Thus the consumer never got a chance to choose the best choice. The application that does things the way he wants, and a store that supplies cheaper songs, or perhaps even songs that Apple doesn't supply.
So Apple endorses you to use any software to transfer files between a PC and an iPod? I didn't think so. Your argument is irrelevant since I was referring to the areas where Apple does force software upon its users. The iPod and the iPhone are two very good examples. Here's where the lock-in occurs. Do you need further explanation?
Don't kid yourself. Almost any corporation has difficulties these days, especially certain software corporations since other corporations using these softwares are beginning to question the necessities. OpenOffice is quickly gaining ground, and in my experience the biggest reason why corporations aren't fully migrating to OpenOffice is that their affiliates are still using MS Office, and you can just imagine peoples faces when they receive a.odt file instead of a.doc file. So it's really not about functionality or innovation. Even if MS Office has a thousand more features the office suits have reached to the extent where almost anything new is more about convenience rather than necessity.
They don't understand mirrors, but why does this render any other conclusion that may very well coexist invalid? I can draw tons of conclusions from that simple explanation. They don't understand photonics for example, perhaps not the best example but it proves my point.
Perhaps I'm coming from the wrong angle here. I'm not saying that Linux would necessarily be a better choice for the device. What I'm saying is that if it isn't allowed (by Apple through keeping specs secret etc) then I see no reason to even look at it twice.
The iPod and iTunes are two different products. Why should I be forced to use the other if I buy one of them? And yes there are applications that can interact with iPods, but please don't bullshit me with Apples intentions to fend off everybody else. People find it nice to be able to use their paid for music elsewhere than Apple only devices.
And for the iPod selling at a loss, I never claimed it was so, I clearly said "if". But the link above shows how they can manipulate the market by doing exactly this, in reverse.
If iTunes store was infact the best store around, how come you can't just release it into the wild and people will love it?
I'm sorry, what? I really don't get what you're trying to say here.
I'll explain further. If iTunes is such a great application, how come it isn't a choice? If it was infact the best choice then I see no reason why iPod or iPhone or iWhatever owners would choose otherwise. Because it simply isn't. It's a messy application that nearly made me vomit a little in my mouth the first time I saw it.
I'm very much interested in what part of my post was FUD. Typichal fanboy abbreviation to use, FUD. Oh and for future posts, remember to explain what exactly you think is "FUD", or it only makes you look like a douche.
If you don't already know the concept of free software then I suggest you have some googling to do. I don't mind proprietary software, but I'm not interested in running a proprietary platform. Free and open should naturally be the fundamental ground which any software stands on, even if it's proprietary or not. Why? You ask. Well it's difficult to explain to someone who's a fan of Apple, because to you iTunes and iPod together makes perfect sense. To me it's a horrible lock down that serves only the interest of Apple, not the consumer. In all honesty, how well do you think iTunes store would have done without Apple bundling iTunes with almost all its devices? Not only bundling but actively isolating any outside developers looking to create an alternative. If I buy an iPod I've already paid for its expenses. If Apple tries to sell it with "loss" just to collect the rest of the revenue through iTunes store then the iPod is in a way on lease. If I buy an iPod bundled with iTunes and Apple actively support third party developers to create new or improved ways to use my device then I consider it a fair deal. The sad truth is however that Apple does everything to prevent this. This method doesn't lead to "the best it could be", it leads to whatever benefits Apple.
In the end you will end up paying more for songs because Apple sold you your iPod, when there could be other services that provide cheaper alternatives. If iTunes store was infact the best store around, how come you can't just release it into the wild and people will love it? Such as Firefox. The answer is simple, most people use iTunes because they're forced to. Eventually they might get accustomed to it but why compromise in the first place? Now you tell me, why would I support something like that? As a consumer, what do I benefit from such a selling strategy?
Wow, macs4all. I'll leave that uncommented. Anywho, thanks for the elaborate explanation of OS X being "TRUE Unix". I hate to break it to you but running a "TRUE Unix" doesn't really mean anything and you're not scoring any points. There is most certainly no "jealousy" because there really isn't anything to be jealous about, and the fact that you make such a childish claim states your age. I'm not interested in arguing with a teenager about... well anything really.
So you take off a perfectly good unix with drivers for all the bits of the hardware, and lots of application support, and replace it with a one-size-fits all OS that doesn't do the half of it... Why?
Haha ok let me break this down to you. First of all that "perfectly good" part is solely your opinion and believe it or not not everybody agrees. Secondly there are huge differences between unix like OSs. And last but not least, some people like to own whatever they've bought rather than lease it. That's why.
I read the summary, however I was replying to the parent. That's kind of how this works. Even though all replies are due to be related to the article, they aren't all supposed to be a direct response to it and I merely poked a hole in the example that I replied to.
Still if Google is advertising pirated software then it is simply promoting a black market -- illegal trade. You are not allowed to advertise illegally obtained merchandise at all. This is so beyond trademark issues that it is absurd to even bring it to discussion. The problem at hand here is promoting illegitimate software, regardless of trademark infringement, and should be treated as such.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't bother. The people claiming that Ubuntu doesn't "just work" aren't eager to try it out for themselves. Instead they waste their time spreading hearsay and lies. Also people tend to forget that it's your own responsibility to check for hardware support before you install something, such as Linux. The same rule applies for Windows, OS X, a new windshield on your car, shoes that fit your feet, the list can be made infinite. So if you blame the OS for not being compatible with your hardware that you didn't bother to confirm before you bought it you're as dumb as someone who'd buy a Porche side mirror for an Audi before checking if it's compatible.
I think you haven't tested any major Linux dist for a long time.
Sadly your lack of arguments leads to flamebaiting. However try lawsuits for ridiculous sums of money that do not reflect real loss of income. Its one thing to pay for your damages, but if you actually consider this fair then I can only hope someone shoots your kneecap off with a shotgun the next time you make an illegal turn or drive too fast. It's called excessive sentencing, hope you'll like it.
Slashdot? I'm talking about journalism in general. Not everything spins around Slashdot.
No not really, not at all actually. Corporate copyright holders have held a gun at the heads of a few threatening that anybody that does the same will be made an example of. This is not even remotely close to my bank example. They can't stop the methods because it would take an insane amount of restriction and surveillance, so they try the scare tactics. If the method was adapted to reality we wouldn't have had this discussion to begin with.
Also you know very damn well that people object to the fact that they are forced to be monitored just so that nobody shares files. This is a pretty big sacrifice we make for the entertainment industry and you seem to think that people brought it on themselves. Perhaps they did, but perhaps the entertainment industry did as well. Whatever methods are used today are completely useless, and to defend them isn't doing the entertainment industry nor their consumers any good. Nobody thinks music artists should be poor, at least nobody that enjoys music, since nobody would produce music if reality was as such. But the current structure is not the only possible one, and I'm damn sure that even the entertainment industry will abandon this fools errand sooner or later. Right now you're one of the responsible for keeping this natural transition at halt.
Um, maybe not in your Mom's basement, nor in your l337's friend's Mom's basements; but, in certain financial, government, academic, scientific and business circles it sure do!
Name one.
If people constantly found ways to rob banks without implications there wouldn't be many banks left, would there? Instead there would be another solution that fits reality better. I don't know if you're trying to be funny or really using this as an argument, but if you're serious then you have to understand that if a method doesn't work, you need to rethink it and adapt it so that it does. The same goes with robbing banks. The very reason that we have banks left is because they've been adapted to reality. Bigger and more secure safes, security staff, panic buttons etc. The fact that avoiding getting caught filesharing is so easy means that something is wrong. Either we keep up this charade and try to limit internet without any results, or we adapt ourselves and our businesses to it and create new rules that can coexist with internet.
In all fairness I never claimed that these 5000 people were responsible for their entire revenue. There's probably been a lot of expense cuts as well, such as excessive material and marketing. I don't know if you work within a corporation or not but if you don't then I can tell you that probably every corporation on the face of this planet is undergoing savings strategies right now, and has been for a couple of months. Still I'm not saying that MS sales dropped to 0, I'm saying that MS is not untouched by the market turbulence. And all the savings in addition to the sales contribute to the revenue.
Of course you're right. By experiencing I meant anticipating, simply a bad choice of words from my side. However the fact that their revenue is solely based on these 5000 people was never my claim. This in addition to expense cuts, such as marketing expenses or material expenses etc., is how it is in reality. Also you have to keep in mind that the MS shareholders might be very disappointed with merely 1 billion for Q4 (which is, if you know business, always the best quarter). So perhaps you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. You can't assume that anything above 0 is necessarily good. You can't assume that anything above 1 billion is good neither. One thing is for sure, they fired 5000 people at once. This may not say how well Vista is selling but it does say a lot, and I think it's unfair to neglect it as irrelevant to "how well the company is doing".
You're assuming that the profit generated by every employee is collected at once. Software development is a long term investment and that whatever these 5000 employees produced was most likely done way before the market crash. Initially when these people were hired the revenue was big enough to support them while producing. Now Microsoft can instead focus on selling the products generated by these employees showing promising figures. This is a very common strategy and the only downside is that this will slow down production, but if production isn't in sync with market demand then there's no real downside. But lowered market demand is not good for any company, in the short term you can fend it off using said strategies, but in the long term you're forced to downsize operation. However the crash didn't affect MS for being MS, nor any other company. It affected the whole market tilting the real values. Most companies are just waiting it out like this since they know the market isn't reflecting actual demand.
The real problems come from confusingly bad articles like these
I wonder just how often this statement is true, or perhaps I should be careful with what I wish for. Some might say it's unfair to say but isn't it time journalism is rendered strictly as entertainment only? I mean sure there is occasionally some journalist that actually tries to report the truth, but it's really no secret that more often it's about luring readers to see the ads using sensational headlines and too often just plain lies.
The term "how well they're doing" is very vague. If you're talking about revenue then no, revenue and amount of jobs are not in direct corelation. If you're talking about market demand then yes, it indicates that the market demand is lower than expected which would render these 5000 employees unprofitable. It's really quite simple. If you own a company and notice that the workload is getting too large, you're in need of additional workforce, thus you hire new people. When the market demand for your product is lowered the workload is naturally also lowered, which renders some employees unprofitable, thus you fire them. During this period you could in theory provide the exact same fiscal revenue, given that these people niether cost nor earn the company anything. This is a very simplified example as there are many other aspects, such as material expenses, marketing expenses etc. and a more sober solution to it is of course a combination of cutting unnecessary expenses (material, marketing etc.) and fire unnecessary workforce.
So in my opinion it does reflect "how well they're doing" as revenue isn't the only factor to look for. What it doesn't indicate is exactly how well they're doing.
So you don't consider having to fire 5000 employees in order to continue providing positive figures a financial difficulty, I do. No need to continue this.
You know it's very simple. You bought an iPod, and you like iTunes. Good for you. What about those that bought an iPod and despise iTunes? It's one thing to support your device with software (mind you this is not the issue), it's another thing to lock out others looking to develop software for those that don't wish to use iTunes rendering them forced to use said application. The majority of those that initially bought an iPod had no clue they needed to use iTunes. Thus the consumer never got a chance to choose the best choice. The application that does things the way he wants, and a store that supplies cheaper songs, or perhaps even songs that Apple doesn't supply.
So Apple endorses you to use any software to transfer files between a PC and an iPod? I didn't think so. Your argument is irrelevant since I was referring to the areas where Apple does force software upon its users. The iPod and the iPhone are two very good examples. Here's where the lock-in occurs. Do you need further explanation?
Radio stations are roughly 50% ads and 50% the same songs they played two hours ago.
Roughly? I'd say pretty much exactly.
Chrysler may have financial difficulties - Microsoft certainly hasn't.
Say what now?
.odt file instead of a .doc file. So it's really not about functionality or innovation. Even if MS Office has a thousand more features the office suits have reached to the extent where almost anything new is more about convenience rather than necessity.
Don't kid yourself. Almost any corporation has difficulties these days, especially certain software corporations since other corporations using these softwares are beginning to question the necessities. OpenOffice is quickly gaining ground, and in my experience the biggest reason why corporations aren't fully migrating to OpenOffice is that their affiliates are still using MS Office, and you can just imagine peoples faces when they receive a
They don't understand mirrors, but why does this render any other conclusion that may very well coexist invalid? I can draw tons of conclusions from that simple explanation. They don't understand photonics for example, perhaps not the best example but it proves my point.
They make things hard on users, but are useless against phishing and keyloggers.
What!? Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!
So Darwin was wrong because you assume that fittest means smartest? In that case you're not very fit yourself.
The iPod and iTunes are two different products. Why should I be forced to use the other if I buy one of them? And yes there are applications that can interact with iPods, but please don't bullshit me with Apples intentions to fend off everybody else. People find it nice to be able to use their paid for music elsewhere than Apple only devices.
And for the iPod selling at a loss, I never claimed it was so, I clearly said "if". But the link above shows how they can manipulate the market by doing exactly this, in reverse.
If iTunes store was infact the best store around, how come you can't just release it into the wild and people will love it? I'm sorry, what? I really don't get what you're trying to say here.
I'll explain further. If iTunes is such a great application, how come it isn't a choice? If it was infact the best choice then I see no reason why iPod or iPhone or iWhatever owners would choose otherwise. Because it simply isn't. It's a messy application that nearly made me vomit a little in my mouth the first time I saw it.
I'm very much interested in what part of my post was FUD. Typichal fanboy abbreviation to use, FUD. Oh and for future posts, remember to explain what exactly you think is "FUD", or it only makes you look like a douche.
If you don't already know the concept of free software then I suggest you have some googling to do. I don't mind proprietary software, but I'm not interested in running a proprietary platform. Free and open should naturally be the fundamental ground which any software stands on, even if it's proprietary or not. Why? You ask. Well it's difficult to explain to someone who's a fan of Apple, because to you iTunes and iPod together makes perfect sense. To me it's a horrible lock down that serves only the interest of Apple, not the consumer. In all honesty, how well do you think iTunes store would have done without Apple bundling iTunes with almost all its devices? Not only bundling but actively isolating any outside developers looking to create an alternative. If I buy an iPod I've already paid for its expenses. If Apple tries to sell it with "loss" just to collect the rest of the revenue through iTunes store then the iPod is in a way on lease. If I buy an iPod bundled with iTunes and Apple actively support third party developers to create new or improved ways to use my device then I consider it a fair deal. The sad truth is however that Apple does everything to prevent this. This method doesn't lead to "the best it could be", it leads to whatever benefits Apple.
In the end you will end up paying more for songs because Apple sold you your iPod, when there could be other services that provide cheaper alternatives. If iTunes store was infact the best store around, how come you can't just release it into the wild and people will love it? Such as Firefox. The answer is simple, most people use iTunes because they're forced to. Eventually they might get accustomed to it but why compromise in the first place? Now you tell me, why would I support something like that? As a consumer, what do I benefit from such a selling strategy?
Wow, macs4all. I'll leave that uncommented. Anywho, thanks for the elaborate explanation of OS X being "TRUE Unix". I hate to break it to you but running a "TRUE Unix" doesn't really mean anything and you're not scoring any points. There is most certainly no "jealousy" because there really isn't anything to be jealous about, and the fact that you make such a childish claim states your age. I'm not interested in arguing with a teenager about... well anything really.
So you take off a perfectly good unix with drivers for all the bits of the hardware, and lots of application support, and replace it with a one-size-fits all OS that doesn't do the half of it... Why?
Haha ok let me break this down to you. First of all that "perfectly good" part is solely your opinion and believe it or not not everybody agrees. Secondly there are huge differences between unix like OSs. And last but not least, some people like to own whatever they've bought rather than lease it. That's why.
I read the summary, however I was replying to the parent. That's kind of how this works. Even though all replies are due to be related to the article, they aren't all supposed to be a direct response to it and I merely poked a hole in the example that I replied to.
Still if Google is advertising pirated software then it is simply promoting a black market -- illegal trade. You are not allowed to advertise illegally obtained merchandise at all. This is so beyond trademark issues that it is absurd to even bring it to discussion. The problem at hand here is promoting illegitimate software, regardless of trademark infringement, and should be treated as such.