+5 Insightful?! Given that maybe, maybe 0.01% of people are using those betas, comparing IE with buggy beta versions is entirely irrelevent. Neither Firefox, nor Safari recommend that the public use those beta versions.
What would be relevent is a comparison of the browsers on platforms with different amounts of RAM. Does IE8 still beat Firefox on a low-mem netbook? How does Chrome's fancy caching mechanism work with different amounts of memory? When I've got too many tabs open, Chrome can take 4 seconds to switch from tab to tab, while firefox seems to handle them with ease.
There are many relevent comparisons, but comparing betas is most definitely not one of them.
Secondly, motorcycles behave pretty much as the user expects.
As a rider, I'll point out how wrong this statement is. At speeds above around 25mph, to turn, you actually push in the direction you want to go (called push steering: ex. push on the left handlebar to go left), as opposed to in a car where you turn the steering wheel in the direction you want to go. BIG difference! --
If, as you suggest, Microsoft has a monopoly, it's only because they've mastered the installation process. Nothing but lack of common sense is stopping Linux from gaining more traction in the non-geek world. Apt and rpm are made for sysadmins, and are effectively unusable by the general populace. Currently, so is Linux.
Again, someone who didn't read the article -- and in the thread entitled RTFA!
Google is very willing to pay money for the content. What they are not willing to pay are extortionate prices aimed at putting Internet media in the uk out of business.
And who said the "artists" have anything to do with it? If you mean a bunch of lawyers working for boards of directors that report to shareholders, I suppose I'll agree that there's some artistry to what they do. When the PRS can't even say which artists are to benefit, it's a sure sign that they're not involved in the negotiations
1. MTV is almost 30 years old. Times change, old timer, and youtube != MTV. If youtube receives a request for removal by a copyright holder, they do so (see Viacom). The thing is, most companies/artists/organizations want to give their media away because the advertising they receive by being on youtube is worth it.
2. As many others have noted, youtube does not make much money off these videos. Distribution costs for youtube are higher than for MTV, and the advertising model is very different. But here's the most important part, and why the U.K should be thanking Google:
The PRS and its partners have been attempting near extortion prices on the licencing of online content. As many other sites have found out (see Pandora), it's impossible to stay in business in the U.K with the charges levied by the PRS. Google is possibly the only company with enough sway to stand up to these fees, and in doing so, they're not protecting their own profit so much as protecting the ability of all similar websites to operate in the U.K.
3. The PRS won't even reply to Google's request for exactly which artists will receive the money (is it Google or the PRS that is less accountable?). Moreover, if you'd READ THE ARTICLE, you might have read this: "Mr Walker told BBC News the PRS was seeking a rise in fees "many, many factors" higher than the previous agreement." Seems more like it's the PRS playing innocent, while hiking fees more than ever before
--
Everything the UK recording industry is doing seems to be aimed at restricting music on the Internet, in favour of the traditional distribution methods they're so much more comfortable with. Everyone in the UK should be thanking Google for having the guts to stand up for not just their own rights, but those of all startups and smaller players in the online media distribution market.
Your arguments against this distro can be applied equally to all the others. RedHat has a different filesystem placement than Debian for example. Try installing via RPM on one machine and see where it ends up compared to apt-get on another. Within the distro, there's consistency, but linux already lacks consistency between distributions. Gobo is no different.
How would/Applications vs/Programs be any different than/bin vs/usr/local/bin, other than it being more intuitive?
One final note: when you say 99% of users, you mean Linux users, who represent a pitiful percentage of overall OS users. Package managers, and the arcane filesystem will keep the figure near-zero as long as they retain their geek-oriented appeal.
I don't think you read the very first sentence of TFA:
"Apple has topped the ten per cent mark for worldwide browser market share" -- from a UK website, not a U.S one.
As you saw in the stats page that the article linked to, it also read "worldwide" stats, but at 7.42%
I'm having a hard time understanding where the "10%" figure comes from too. The article links to a stats page which lists the stats for IE, Chrome and Firefox at 68.17, 1.16, 21.96 respectively (as reported in TFA).
But, for Safari, the article says 10.91%, but the stats page says 7.42% -- that's a big difference!
Can anybody find where this 10% figure comes from (my personal guess is outta thin air)
Ironically, Videotron gives the best service in Quebec -- no slow downs at peak hours, double or more the speed of DSL competitors. Which is why it's so deceiving that they're blaming congestion issues as a reason to get rid of network neutrality.
Hey Harper (Mr. Prime Minister), repeat after me: there is no need, at present, to break network neutrality. If congestion becomes an issue in the future, due to all bandwidth running through only two "pipes" (Bell & Videotron/Rogers), then maybe it's the competition laws that need to be reworked rather than internet usage laws.
Unfortunately some things are inherently complex, and as you try to wrap them behind simplistic abstractions...
Does anyone else see the irony in a poster reducing a company like Microsoft's approach to one of "simplicity", while he himself reduces the complex discussion down to a "simplistic abstraction"?
--
even worse, he's dead wrong. Rather, the poster porkchop's argument that Microsoft chose flexibility is bang on.
The leader of the Greens had called Canadians stupid, compared the government's environmental plan to Chamberlain's appeasement of the nazis before WWII, and then ran a loud mouth campaign that ended up in few votes.
It's very easy to stand up on a pulpit without any responsibility to a real chunk of the electorate, and spout out ideas. With three political parties already established in Canada, it'd be far more constructive if the Greens worked from within one or more of them, than haplessly going it on their own.
As for software, it seems obvious that Microsoft has developed an MS-centric culture within governmental offices, and the best way in for open-source might be to do the same -- change the culture from the inside. Encourage individual gov't offices to change, and let the idea of now proven open-source components filter up to the politicians.
Not all academic journals are equal, and open-source vetting would span the gamut between well respected and not-to-be trusted (phpBB anyone?) Your comments read as if Microsoft doesn't have competent experts and linux does, which could also be argued both ways.
I don't think there's any need to exaggerate the security of open source software. One of my clients was recently burned due to Debian/Ubuntu's openSSL changes (utter disregard for security) that led to their servers being taken down, and a lot of hassle and explaining to be done. The sysadmins on the job weren't on top of their security updates, and Debian was not vetting their code properly.
Linux security relies on its system administrator. A good sysadmin with a bunch of linux boxes will be able to run a secure network, while negligent ones, such as those I've dealt with recently, can create security nightmares with linux. Same goes for Windows, really.
So, the most important thing you need to show your customers is that you are reliable, on top of your profession, and have the knowledge and confidence to stand behind your open source products. The weakest link in any network, be it Windows or Linux, is those that administer it.
i think applications that require an x-window-system should be just agnostic enough to allow for the older alternative to xorg
When many posters are saying the problem with X.org is the legacy code, why would it be a good thing for apps to be forced to run on yet an older version (xfree86 is more an older version than an alternative to xorg) -- would you prefer progress stop completely?
It's like saying that all new Flash (or Java/other) apps should be able to run on years-old versions of Flash/JRE, despite the advances over the years in the technologies. The complexity of supporting many old windowing systems would end up in the apps that use them, I'd imagine requiring hacks and bloating yet more code.
Isn't the idea of supporting bloated old legacy code one of the main beefs slashdotters have with Microsoft?
sudo is optional? apt-get or rpm is optional on debian/red hat? Verifying that your core system is legit is optional??
Where are the installer logs for all applications? How do you upgrade your liveCD for new versions/security upgrades? How easy is it for 99% of people to "open up any" rpm/deb to figure out where various things installed? What about when source installs by default to one place, rpm another, and apt to yet a completely different location (try LAMP with any these setups)?
You're right in that Microsoft gives less choice, but it actually results in more consistency, not less.
Desktop Linux has got some problems, and the community could do well with admitting it.
If you believe all that is hostile, then you must really believe that that annoying sudo thing is hostile. Or that you never know where apt-get or rpm will install various elements of programs is hostile. And let me guess: you find that verifying checksums to be hostile as well (those checksums are oh so long!)?
Sounds to me like you believe that anything you're not comfortable with is hostile, whether it's sensible or not.
You're treating Windows like you treat desktop Linux.
With the Linux desktop, whichever variety you choose, there remains large technological advancements before it is usable by the general public. With Windows, it works, and has been working for over ten years for the majority of people.
Vista has improved many small things that always ticked me off with XP. Better file browser, better wifi controls, but really, a countless list of small changes that make just make desktop life easier. If you want to see quantifiable changes with something that is about feel (the desktop), I'm afraid you won't find it.
Speed-wise, SP1 made everything more responsive and quicker, and switching between windows seems a lot better than on XP. And we all know that hardly anyone installed XP on old computers -- preferring at the time their old Windows 2000, but eventually XP won people over as they upgraded.
But, like another poster referenced, you likely wouldn't spend money on an os anyways. A few hundred bucks spread out over many years for something that I spend hours with daily, and makes things go easier IS worth my hard-earned money, and the frustrations saved over XP are worth it because I value my time.
For very similar reasons, when it comes to servers, I'll never use Windows, and instead stick with Linux -- less frustrations, more reliable performance.
right click on a program icon, choose the menu option "run as administrator", and away you go. Is that really so difficult?
Now, security issues while file browsing in Linux, forcing you to drop down to command line half the time, sudoing constantly and retyping your password dozens of times to configure programs is a serious pain in the ass. As in, the kind of pain in the ass that makes Linux on the desktop a non-starter for most people.
The fact isn't that it's not easy to perform "sudo" in Windows, but that performing "sudo" all the time in Linux isn't as easy to deal with as the Windows solution -- not that any good fanboi would ever admit to it.
Have you thought of why that 256 byte message gets sent so regularly? Just a wild guess, but could it be your phone checking to see if there are any new SMS messages?
I wonder what the charge/MB of SMS would be if all these tiny, almost empty communications were counted.
While what you wrote is true, it's also misleading and missing in context.
1 - Though there is a minority government, it's common practice for the parties to barter votes between issues. ie, if the opposition wants bill xx passed, they might agree to the government's copyright bill. True, though, it is more difficult to pass normal votes without a majority.
2 - non-confidence votes are primarily for financial issues (like the annual budget) or highly sensitive issues (like Canada's role in Afghanistan), and a copyright law would be very unlikely to fall under this category.
The irony, however, is that the best way the government can pass something is to make or attach it to a non-confidence vote. The opposition is so scared of an election that they'll pass things they don't agree with, just to avoid an election.
No, please don't email your MP. If you read Knopf's blog, you'll find that he's extreme, and much of what he writes is full of vitriol (as others have posted). This blogger is exactly the WRONG person to have up against the music corporations because he spews out idiotic comments that will hurt the cause of fair copyright far more than it will be helped.
Here's a shocker for ya: my Vista has been stable and runs for more days than I've bothered to count. It's a resource hog, oh yeah, a bad one, but it does fix a ton of those rotten XP annoyances. But I digress...
The one and only non-starter for Linux on the desktop is the terrible package management systems there are strewn about in a mangled mess amongst the various distributions.
Even as a web developer, try installing the latest apache-php-mysql on Ubuntu (Feisty)... you'll only get 2 year old versions of each. Want to change? Then you uninstall about 20 packages of apt stuff (if you can figure them out), before dropping to compiling from source, all the while sudoing everything in sight. It's a three downloads, three clicks,maybe even three UAC screens before it's very quickly and easily installed in Windows.
Next time someone asks for enlightenment, try spending 2 minutes on research before spewing out "IIRC" and other bullshit.
On the Concorde's profitability, from http://www.concordesst.com/retire/faq_r.html :
On average Concorde made and operating profit of £30-50 Million a year for British Airways in the boom years where many passengers were travelling first class. British Airways reportedly received £1.75 Billion in revenue for Concorde services against an operating cost of around £1 Billion. Air France made a much smaller profit. And you might want to do a little search for images of the A380... there happen to be 4 engines on it, just like the 747.
--
IIRC == "I'm a lazy poster, don't trust me"
Slashdot Mirror
+5 Insightful?! Given that maybe, maybe 0.01% of people are using those betas, comparing IE with buggy beta versions is entirely irrelevent. Neither Firefox, nor Safari recommend that the public use those beta versions.
What would be relevent is a comparison of the browsers on platforms with different amounts of RAM. Does IE8 still beat Firefox on a low-mem netbook? How does Chrome's fancy caching mechanism work with different amounts of memory? When I've got too many tabs open, Chrome can take 4 seconds to switch from tab to tab, while firefox seems to handle them with ease.
There are many relevent comparisons, but comparing betas is most definitely not one of them.
Secondly, motorcycles behave pretty much as the user expects.
As a rider, I'll point out how wrong this statement is. At speeds above around 25mph, to turn, you actually push in the direction you want to go (called push steering: ex. push on the left handlebar to go left), as opposed to in a car where you turn the steering wheel in the direction you want to go. BIG difference!
--
If, as you suggest, Microsoft has a monopoly, it's only because they've mastered the installation process. Nothing but lack of common sense is stopping Linux from gaining more traction in the non-geek world. Apt and rpm are made for sysadmins, and are effectively unusable by the general populace. Currently, so is Linux.
Again, someone who didn't read the article -- and in the thread entitled RTFA!
Google is very willing to pay money for the content. What they are not willing to pay are extortionate prices aimed at putting Internet media in the uk out of business.
And who said the "artists" have anything to do with it? If you mean a bunch of lawyers working for boards of directors that report to shareholders, I suppose I'll agree that there's some artistry to what they do. When the PRS can't even say which artists are to benefit, it's a sure sign that they're not involved in the negotiations
Alright, I'm with you, let's review it:
1. MTV is almost 30 years old. Times change, old timer, and youtube != MTV. If youtube receives a request for removal by a copyright holder, they do so (see Viacom). The thing is, most companies/artists/organizations want to give their media away because the advertising they receive by being on youtube is worth it.
2. As many others have noted, youtube does not make much money off these videos. Distribution costs for youtube are higher than for MTV, and the advertising model is very different. But here's the most important part, and why the U.K should be thanking Google:
The PRS and its partners have been attempting near extortion prices on the licencing of online content. As many other sites have found out (see Pandora), it's impossible to stay in business in the U.K with the charges levied by the PRS. Google is possibly the only company with enough sway to stand up to these fees, and in doing so, they're not protecting their own profit so much as protecting the ability of all similar websites to operate in the U.K.
3. The PRS won't even reply to Google's request for exactly which artists will receive the money (is it Google or the PRS that is less accountable?). Moreover, if you'd READ THE ARTICLE, you might have read this: "Mr Walker told BBC News the PRS was seeking a rise in fees "many, many factors" higher than the previous agreement." Seems more like it's the PRS playing innocent, while hiking fees more than ever before
--
Everything the UK recording industry is doing seems to be aimed at restricting music on the Internet, in favour of the traditional distribution methods they're so much more comfortable with. Everyone in the UK should be thanking Google for having the guts to stand up for not just their own rights, but those of all startups and smaller players in the online media distribution market.
Your arguments against this distro can be applied equally to all the others. RedHat has a different filesystem placement than Debian for example. Try installing via RPM on one machine and see where it ends up compared to apt-get on another. Within the distro, there's consistency, but linux already lacks consistency between distributions. Gobo is no different.
/Applications vs /Programs be any different than /bin vs /usr/local/bin, other than it being more intuitive?
How would
One final note: when you say 99% of users, you mean Linux users, who represent a pitiful percentage of overall OS users. Package managers, and the arcane filesystem will keep the figure near-zero as long as they retain their geek-oriented appeal.
I don't think you read the very first sentence of TFA:
"Apple has topped the ten per cent mark for worldwide browser market share" -- from a UK website, not a U.S one.
As you saw in the stats page that the article linked to, it also read "worldwide" stats, but at 7.42%
Something doesn't add up
I'm having a hard time understanding where the "10%" figure comes from too. The article links to a stats page which lists the stats for IE, Chrome and Firefox at 68.17, 1.16, 21.96 respectively (as reported in TFA).
But, for Safari, the article says 10.91%, but the stats page says 7.42% -- that's a big difference!
Can anybody find where this 10% figure comes from (my personal guess is outta thin air)
Ironically, Videotron gives the best service in Quebec -- no slow downs at peak hours, double or more the speed of DSL competitors. Which is why it's so deceiving that they're blaming congestion issues as a reason to get rid of network neutrality.
Hey Harper (Mr. Prime Minister), repeat after me: there is no need, at present, to break network neutrality. If congestion becomes an issue in the future, due to all bandwidth running through only two "pipes" (Bell & Videotron/Rogers), then maybe it's the competition laws that need to be reworked rather than internet usage laws.
Unfortunately some things are inherently complex, and as you try to wrap them behind simplistic abstractions...
Does anyone else see the irony in a poster reducing a company like Microsoft's approach to one of "simplicity", while he himself reduces the complex discussion down to a "simplistic abstraction"?
--
even worse, he's dead wrong.
Rather, the poster porkchop's argument that Microsoft chose flexibility is bang on.
The leader of the Greens had called Canadians stupid, compared the government's environmental plan to Chamberlain's appeasement of the nazis before WWII, and then ran a loud mouth campaign that ended up in few votes.
It's very easy to stand up on a pulpit without any responsibility to a real chunk of the electorate, and spout out ideas. With three political parties already established in Canada, it'd be far more constructive if the Greens worked from within one or more of them, than haplessly going it on their own.
As for software, it seems obvious that Microsoft has developed an MS-centric culture within governmental offices, and the best way in for open-source might be to do the same -- change the culture from the inside. Encourage individual gov't offices to change, and let the idea of now proven open-source components filter up to the politicians.
Not all academic journals are equal, and open-source vetting would span the gamut between well respected and not-to-be trusted (phpBB anyone?) Your comments read as if Microsoft doesn't have competent experts and linux does, which could also be argued both ways.
I don't think there's any need to exaggerate the security of open source software. One of my clients was recently burned due to Debian/Ubuntu's openSSL changes (utter disregard for security) that led to their servers being taken down, and a lot of hassle and explaining to be done. The sysadmins on the job weren't on top of their security updates, and Debian was not vetting their code properly.
Linux security relies on its system administrator. A good sysadmin with a bunch of linux boxes will be able to run a secure network, while negligent ones, such as those I've dealt with recently, can create security nightmares with linux. Same goes for Windows, really.
So, the most important thing you need to show your customers is that you are reliable, on top of your profession, and have the knowledge and confidence to stand behind your open source products. The weakest link in any network, be it Windows or Linux, is those that administer it.
ah, but the kessel's with the maw, in the cluster with the tunnel. It's the kessel in the cluster with the crew that is true!
--
so let me get this straight: are you proposing an argument against net neutrality?
When many posters are saying the problem with X.org is the legacy code, why would it be a good thing for apps to be forced to run on yet an older version (xfree86 is more an older version than an alternative to xorg) -- would you prefer progress stop completely?
It's like saying that all new Flash (or Java/other) apps should be able to run on years-old versions of Flash/JRE, despite the advances over the years in the technologies.
The complexity of supporting many old windowing systems would end up in the apps that use them, I'd imagine requiring hacks and bloating yet more code.
Isn't the idea of supporting bloated old legacy code one of the main beefs slashdotters have with Microsoft?
sudo is optional? apt-get or rpm is optional on debian/red hat? Verifying that your core system is legit is optional??
Where are the installer logs for all applications? How do you upgrade your liveCD for new versions/security upgrades? How easy is it for 99% of people to "open up any" rpm/deb to figure out where various things installed? What about when source installs by default to one place, rpm another, and apt to yet a completely different location (try LAMP with any these setups)?
You're right in that Microsoft gives less choice, but it actually results in more consistency, not less.
Desktop Linux has got some problems, and the community could do well with admitting it.
If you believe all that is hostile, then you must really believe that that annoying sudo thing is hostile. Or that you never know where apt-get or rpm will install various elements of programs is hostile. And let me guess: you find that verifying checksums to be hostile as well (those checksums are oh so long!)?
Sounds to me like you believe that anything you're not comfortable with is hostile, whether it's sensible or not.
It's a hostile world we live in.
You're treating Windows like you treat desktop Linux.
With the Linux desktop, whichever variety you choose, there remains large technological advancements before it is usable by the general public. With Windows, it works, and has been working for over ten years for the majority of people.
Vista has improved many small things that always ticked me off with XP. Better file browser, better wifi controls, but really, a countless list of small changes that make just make desktop life easier. If you want to see quantifiable changes with something that is about feel (the desktop), I'm afraid you won't find it.
Speed-wise, SP1 made everything more responsive and quicker, and switching between windows seems a lot better than on XP. And we all know that hardly anyone installed XP on old computers -- preferring at the time their old Windows 2000, but eventually XP won people over as they upgraded.
But, like another poster referenced, you likely wouldn't spend money on an os anyways. A few hundred bucks spread out over many years for something that I spend hours with daily, and makes things go easier IS worth my hard-earned money, and the frustrations saved over XP are worth it because I value my time.
For very similar reasons, when it comes to servers, I'll never use Windows, and instead stick with Linux -- less frustrations, more reliable performance.
Sounds interesting, but I wish they'd named it after something other than a couple of Ford car models. Ford Fusion, Ford Focus, Focus Fusion?
If they'd wanted credibility, they shoulda gone for something like the Yaris Matrix or maybe the Fit Element.
right click on a program icon, choose the menu option "run as administrator", and away you go. Is that really so difficult?
Now, security issues while file browsing in Linux, forcing you to drop down to command line half the time, sudoing constantly and retyping your password dozens of times to configure programs is a serious pain in the ass. As in, the kind of pain in the ass that makes Linux on the desktop a non-starter for most people.
The fact isn't that it's not easy to perform "sudo" in Windows, but that performing "sudo" all the time in Linux isn't as easy to deal with as the Windows solution -- not that any good fanboi would ever admit to it.
Have you thought of why that 256 byte message gets sent so regularly? Just a wild guess, but could it be your phone checking to see if there are any new SMS messages?
I wonder what the charge/MB of SMS would be if all these tiny, almost empty communications were counted.
While what you wrote is true, it's also misleading and missing in context.
1 - Though there is a minority government, it's common practice for the parties to barter votes between issues. ie, if the opposition wants bill xx passed, they might agree to the government's copyright bill. True, though, it is more difficult to pass normal votes without a majority.
2 - non-confidence votes are primarily for financial issues (like the annual budget) or highly sensitive issues (like Canada's role in Afghanistan), and a copyright law would be very unlikely to fall under this category.
The irony, however, is that the best way the government can pass something is to make or attach it to a non-confidence vote. The opposition is so scared of an election that they'll pass things they don't agree with, just to avoid an election.
If you read Knopf's blog, you'll find that he's extreme, and much of what he writes is full of vitriol (as others have posted). This blogger is exactly the WRONG person to have up against the music corporations because he spews out idiotic comments that will hurt the cause of fair copyright far more than it will be helped.
Try reading Knopf's article on CBC radio two, where he writes that "serious" music equals classical music, and all other types are not to be taken as "seriously", for example: Popular music is rarely really "good" music that will endure and become classical. http://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2008/04/cbcs-radio-two-is-being-run-into-ground.html
We should be saluting whoever kicked Howard Knopf out of this forum -- they've done all of us a favour.
Here's a shocker for ya: my Vista has been stable and runs for more days than I've bothered to count. It's a resource hog, oh yeah, a bad one, but it does fix a ton of those rotten XP annoyances. But I digress...
The one and only non-starter for Linux on the desktop is the terrible package management systems there are strewn about in a mangled mess amongst the various distributions.
Even as a web developer, try installing the latest apache-php-mysql on Ubuntu (Feisty)... you'll only get 2 year old versions of each. Want to change? Then you uninstall about 20 packages of apt stuff (if you can figure them out), before dropping to compiling from source, all the while sudoing everything in sight. It's a three downloads, three clicks,maybe even three UAC screens before it's very quickly and easily installed in Windows.
On the Concorde's profitability, from http://www.concordesst.com/retire/faq_r.html :
On average Concorde made and operating profit of £30-50 Million a year for British Airways in the boom years where many passengers were travelling first class. British Airways reportedly received £1.75 Billion in revenue for Concorde services against an operating cost of around £1 Billion. Air France made a much smaller profit. And you might want to do a little search for images of the A380... there happen to be 4 engines on it, just like the 747.
--
IIRC == "I'm a lazy poster, don't trust me"
Very well put. As far as a resume for building a searchable infrastructure, Jimmy doesn't have it.
As for why they're doing it anyways, I would imagine that commercial potential is the spurring factor.