That's just a lack of realism on Linus' part, then. Anyone who's worked more than a few months in IT can tell you that not only are users stupid, they tend to be complete idiots. People REALLY DO need that much hand-holding, and while I don't like it, I can at least accept it.
There's also a reasonable limit on how far such a thing can go. If I sell you land with the condition that a house shall not ever be built on it, it's extremely asinine to say that 1000 years from now, a house cannot legally be built there. Realistically, stipulations should be limited to the immediate buyer of the land, no futher. It's none of the original seller's business what conditions are imposed upon the next buyer, sometime in the future.
The government is not an unrelated third party. They uphold your claims to the land, and defend you from those who would take it away. They are also in charge of enforcing the stipulations. In terms of placing stipulations on the sale of the land, the government most certainly is an unrelated third party. The government is an organization I (and others) empower to enforce our claim to the land, etc, but they are not the owners of the land. They can take their stipulations to situations where they DO own the land.
You seem to think you have a moral right to buy land in an area you like with no strings attached. You don't. You get to choose from among the alternatives offered. Untrue. One has a moral right to buy land in an area we like, with no strings attached, if there is a person willing to sell it on those terms. But even if there is someone who wants to sell me their land no strings attached, the government will quite happily butt in and say they can't do that... infringing on both our moral rights to transact business in the fashion we please.
Ah, but that isn't because the US government is giving everyone analog converters, it's because they're getting rid of the analog signals. Two separate issues. Getting rid of the analog signals does not necessitate wasting money on people's entertainment.
Hell, Windows doesn't meet those criteria! In my experience, using Linux is MUCH less hassle than using Windows. It's true, not every Windows app runs under Linux, but there's this thing called a 'trade-off' - I believe that the relative ease of installation, use and maintenance of Linux much more than compensates for a couple of missing apps*. Well, Windows works almost flawlessly for me, and it runs all my apps. Until Linux runs truly flawlessly (and it obviously doesn't, nothing can), it can't possibly improve on Windows for me.
*things like certain pro-audio apps, high-end graphics packages - y'know, those apps that everyone likes to have a hot copy, but 99.99% of people don't even know how to open (let alone use). People used to collect stamps - now they collect warez... Heh. It's funny cause it's true. I knew a guy in college who pirated stuff he didn't ever use, just had it sitting around archived on discs cause he could.
The point of playing games after all is not to play them on your PC. It's to play them. So play them on a platform that's designed for them. Duh. Get back to me when a strategy game or FPS has been made on a console which is anywhere near as good as the best strategy/FPS games on the PC. It hasn't happened, and probably never will.
If he wants to just give Microsoft money for no reason Wanting to use the apps you like is not "no reason". Until Linux will run all the apps I want (or even just most, that's certainly not asking too much) transparently, with no hassle, it will continue to be a vastly inferior OS for my use. Sorry, but them's just the facts: application availability does matter. Your argument that it doesn't is like telling someone that they should get a Wii because of its innovative and easy controller, even though the 360 has most of the games they like.
Wow, what ignorance. While it's possible that someone doesn't want to use a competing app because they're too lazy/stupid to learn it, more often, it's the case that the other app just isn't good enough (see: Gimp vs Photoshop debates). And if you seriously believe that with GAMES it's so easy to just pick up a competing product and deal (most games are very clearly different from each other), you're just deluding yourself.
PLEASE. The notion that no one buys music if they can obtain it illegally is absolutely ludicrous. I, and many others, have this crazy idea that it's good to support artists who produce work you enjoy, and so I buy their music (/movies/software/whatever else) if I like it. Even if only a small amount is getting back to the artist, it's infinitely more than the $0.00 that goes to them if I pirate.
Evolution is why we're greedy, that's the best one yet. Evolution schmevolution. Greed is bad. That is why every major religion and the majority of secular philosophers (rightly) indict greed for the ills of society. Picking one religion - the Bible doesn't say that money is the root of all evil (misquote), but that The love of money is the root of all evil. This is correct. No one said greed was good, you're putting words into his mouth.
I mean seriously.. that is a textbook example of why constitutionally granting the right for people to own firearms is a retarded idea. No. This is a textbook example of the fact that people are retards. The constitutional right to own a gun is rooted in the idea that it's harder for the government to oppress an armed populace than an unarmed one. The fact that some people abuse that right doesn't make it bad.
Responsible gun owners have every right to be pissed when somebody abuses the right to own a gun, but it bothers me how they compare it to other rights idiots might have that don't result in insta-kills. Again, rights don't stop being rights just because they can be misused. I can use my right to free speech to ruin another person's career, but that doesn't mean free speech is bad. Similarly, I can use my right to drive on the highway (conferred upon me by my driver's license) to run down a pedestrian, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't give a driver's license to anyone.
A computer is practically a given expense for most people, so most of this is irrelevant. The cost of PC gaming is what it costs to bring a half-decent system up to snuff for playing games... which, in most cases, is going to amount to a processor and video card. Maybe some RAM. The other costs are not costs of PC gaming, but the cost of having a PC at all, which is completely separate.
When the hell did I say that the solution was to take out the hardware which was causing the problem? You're fighting me on something which I didn't say at all.
I'm sorry, no user should be harassed as much about security as Vista does, and no OS should crash so thoroughly and often as Vista does with just OEM-installed software installed. I call bullshit. The security harassment, sure, that's a legitimate complaint... even if it makes me wonder why the hell you didn't turn UAC off. Crashing, though? No way. I've been running Vista for a year, and have yet to have it crash once. If your Vista install is crashing all the time, it's almost certainly due to some POS driver or third-party software you're using.
More likely, of course, is that you're just mud-slinging, and quite possibly even have no first-hand experience with Vista. Wouldn't be the first time someone on the internet was hating on something by reputation alone.
Lack of feedback is a very legitimate complaint, but that wasn't the complaint in TFA (and TFS), now was it? The complaint was simply that it didn't install. Not that it didn't give feedback as to why.
So no, you aren't all dumb, but at least one person out there is, because they were complaining that SP1 didn't install. If they'd complained about the lack of feedback, I wouldn't have taken issue with it.
For starters, throwing more money at a problem doesn't automatically produce a better solution, so budget is largely irrelevant here.
And yes, "may not be able" is the best I have because it's the truth. We don't know how exactly what the service pack's code structure looks like, so we can't make an actual judgement as to whether or not the offending portion can just be cut out. Anything's possible with the proper amount of time and effort, but there's a huge difference between "just don't install that part", versus "not installing that part would require a total rewrite of the service pack". Both are possible scenarios, and without having looked at the code ourselves, we simply don't know what's the truth here!
I guess it's all a matter of opinion. I didn't think Bender's Big Score was on par with the series' best moments, but I would rate it as being in the better half of the Futurama material... there are a good few regular series episodes that were weaker than Bender's Big Score.
And as for the "fart joke" factor, I'm not sure what you even mean. Specific examples?
That's a reasonable view, the problem is that Microsoft has to account for the fact that a lot of their customers aren't reasonable. They'll bitch and moan no matter how much Microsoft reminds them that it was unsupported... and if your customers get pissed off enough to switch to a competitor, it doesn't matter how in the wrong they were. You still lost.
No, I'm saying Microsoft MAY NOT be able to. Huge difference there. I don't know if they can or can't, neither do you. The only people who know are the programmers at Microsoft who coded this service pack up, they're the ones who could tell us if the conflicting parts of the service pack can just be cut out or not.
That's the important thing here, and whether or not Ubuntu, or any other OS on earth, can manage it is 100% irrelevant. The fact that it's possible in another setting doesn't prove it's possible in this one.
Seems pretty accurate to me, or at least likely to be. Look under Cause 5. It's a handful of drivers, it's not like Microsoft is taking some sort of shotgun approach here.
Slashdot Mirror
That's just a lack of realism on Linus' part, then. Anyone who's worked more than a few months in IT can tell you that not only are users stupid, they tend to be complete idiots. People REALLY DO need that much hand-holding, and while I don't like it, I can at least accept it.
http://slashdot.org/~cmdrtaco
There's also a reasonable limit on how far such a thing can go. If I sell you land with the condition that a house shall not ever be built on it, it's extremely asinine to say that 1000 years from now, a house cannot legally be built there. Realistically, stipulations should be limited to the immediate buyer of the land, no futher. It's none of the original seller's business what conditions are imposed upon the next buyer, sometime in the future.
Ah, but that isn't because the US government is giving everyone analog converters, it's because they're getting rid of the analog signals. Two separate issues. Getting rid of the analog signals does not necessitate wasting money on people's entertainment.
Tell me... how on God's green fucking earth is TV going to provide BILLIONS of tax dollars?
Wasting my damn taxpayer dollars on providing Americans with TV service. There, done. Do I get a cookie or something?
To quote the GP... "Granted, servers are a different story." You're tilting at windmills on this one, man, he gave OSS on the server its due.
Wow, what ignorance. While it's possible that someone doesn't want to use a competing app because they're too lazy/stupid to learn it, more often, it's the case that the other app just isn't good enough (see: Gimp vs Photoshop debates). And if you seriously believe that with GAMES it's so easy to just pick up a competing product and deal (most games are very clearly different from each other), you're just deluding yourself.
PLEASE. The notion that no one buys music if they can obtain it illegally is absolutely ludicrous. I, and many others, have this crazy idea that it's good to support artists who produce work you enjoy, and so I buy their music (/movies/software/whatever else) if I like it. Even if only a small amount is getting back to the artist, it's infinitely more than the $0.00 that goes to them if I pirate.
A computer is practically a given expense for most people, so most of this is irrelevant. The cost of PC gaming is what it costs to bring a half-decent system up to snuff for playing games... which, in most cases, is going to amount to a processor and video card. Maybe some RAM. The other costs are not costs of PC gaming, but the cost of having a PC at all, which is completely separate.
Writing a driver is Intel's responsibility, not Microsoft's.
When the hell did I say that the solution was to take out the hardware which was causing the problem? You're fighting me on something which I didn't say at all.
More likely, of course, is that you're just mud-slinging, and quite possibly even have no first-hand experience with Vista. Wouldn't be the first time someone on the internet was hating on something by reputation alone.
So no, you aren't all dumb, but at least one person out there is, because they were complaining that SP1 didn't install. If they'd complained about the lack of feedback, I wouldn't have taken issue with it.
And yes, "may not be able" is the best I have because it's the truth. We don't know how exactly what the service pack's code structure looks like, so we can't make an actual judgement as to whether or not the offending portion can just be cut out. Anything's possible with the proper amount of time and effort, but there's a huge difference between "just don't install that part", versus "not installing that part would require a total rewrite of the service pack". Both are possible scenarios, and without having looked at the code ourselves, we simply don't know what's the truth here!
And as for the "fart joke" factor, I'm not sure what you even mean. Specific examples?
That's a reasonable view, the problem is that Microsoft has to account for the fact that a lot of their customers aren't reasonable. They'll bitch and moan no matter how much Microsoft reminds them that it was unsupported... and if your customers get pissed off enough to switch to a competitor, it doesn't matter how in the wrong they were. You still lost.
That's the important thing here, and whether or not Ubuntu, or any other OS on earth, can manage it is 100% irrelevant. The fact that it's possible in another setting doesn't prove it's possible in this one.
Was this not in Vista SP0? I'd be astonished if it wasn't, because that was in Windows XP.
Seems pretty accurate to me, or at least likely to be. Look under Cause 5. It's a handful of drivers, it's not like Microsoft is taking some sort of shotgun approach here.