Anyone that wants a glimpse of how industry & life worked in the USSR should check out the book Armageddon Averted by Stephen Kotkin.
He describes in that book how typewriters were more closely controlled in the USSR than assault weapons.
Another interesting--but totally unrelated tidbit--is that the factories were rewarded based on tonnage produced. So all the steel companies would only produce 1" thick steel plating. There was a dearth of thin steel sheeting.
So car companies would have to buy the thicker steel and mill it down to a workable thickness..
There's hundreds of anecdotes like that. It blew my mind.
Yes, the VBA/Automation is a big part of what's missing.
But as others have said here, Google Documents doesn't even have Find & Replace capabilities yet. (They only have a "Replace All" option and even that is "experimental").
This is the future, I think. I really do. But not today. Not yet. It's just not ready.
The "native" Google format is to have your data locked away on their servers. Yes, you can export it. But you can just as easily save a word document in RTF....Just a thought...
There is _no_ Google Apps Appliance. You're confusing this with their search appliance. If they did have such a server, I think it would be fine. It's no different than using an Exchange server, for example.
So, I'd take your own advice if I were you: Please visit google and study their google apps model: http://www.google.com/a/enterprise/
That data must be given to the public if it's requested doesn't mean that such data is "already public." Not at all. If that were the case, why not just setup a huge anon FTP?
FOIA requests are vetted. The data is scrutinized. On any given document, huge parts of it may be redacted before being given to the petitioner. This suggests that even in "public" documents, much security is required.
There are many regulations regarding the security and control of US Government data. Approved systems. Approved technologies. Approved standards.
And how does FOIA have anything to do with this? Surely the FAA Has confidential and secret documents. Even if 99% is available to the public, are you just going to glaze over the other 1%? Personally, I doubt the numbers are that high. FOIA requests are often returned redacted, meaning that there's a lot of confidential information peppered about.
We're talking about US Government documents being stored on non-government servers. First, I'd be really surprised if something like that was even legal. Second, I have real issues even if it IS legal.
If the "ditch" office/windows they're going to have to use GMail for ALL DOCUMENTS. Anything else would have to be like.txt or.pdf that's emailed around (probably using google servers again, so it's moot).
Furthermore, tell me this slashdot: Why is it better to be locked-in to Googles proprietary software instead of Microsofts?
As others have said, this would only be a good idea, IMO, as a "GApps Appliance" that can be properly audited and approved by US Government security experts.
AMT, like the EITC, mortgage interest deduction, etc, are just patches that had to be added every now and again to keep the whole thing from just falling apart.
The AMT in our current system was a good idea when it was created. It worked well. It helped prevent exactly what we've been deriding--the wealthiest people escaping their responsibilities.
The real flaw is that it has no provision to handle inflation. If its trigger point was adjusted upwards as the mean income rose, it would work fine.
Of course, a better idea is just to scrap the tax code and fix the things that make the AMT necessary.
Unfortunately, we have, what, a $3tn budget? Think about the special interests there. That's enough money to give 3 Million people One million dollars every year. With money in politics the way it is, there's no way we could do any meaningful tax reform.
Which, if you ask me, is why we should have publicly financed elections in this country. Gag orders on political speech for 6 months before every national election and each candidate gets a check from the government. Right now it's easier to get votes than money. That makes doners the real constituency. Special interests. The only way to fix that is going to be to completely remove money from politics. When you cut out cancer you can't just cut our part of it. It will have no effect. McCain/Feingold just proves that the money finds other cracks.
Go call an appraiser. Ask them what the definition of appraised value is. They will tell you that, based on data from what people have recently paid for similar properties, a value is determined that, once adjusted in either direction foe certain variables not able to be matched in comparable sales, appears to be what someone at that moment would ACTUALLY PAY for your home.
Fair Market Value is just that, Market Value. It is, once more, based on what someone will actually pay for it.
If nobody is willing to pay a higher price, that price will never be attained.
In a small excercise to illustrate this, imagine an island nation secluded from the rest of the world where there are only 10 people possibly capable of paying $1,000,000 for a house. Imagine for control purposes that a person can only own one house.
Now imagine that there are 11 identical mansions built. As time goes on, 10 are purchased by the 10 millionaires at $1MM a piece. Tell me: is the 11th house still worth 1MM? If nobody can PAY the $1MM, is that truly what the house is worth? The answer, of course, is no. After all, what good would a worth of $1MM be if it could only ever be sold for, say, $800k?
Now, when the market caught up--one mansion burnt down or another person became wealthy--the house would go up in value quickly to $1MM.
In summary, demand drives the cost, not the supply. If you build a $1MM house and nobody is willing to pay $1MM, you're out of luck. Supply is the constraint and Demand is the actor.
In summary, a home values simply are not growing faster than peoples ability to pay for them.
Yes, creative financing has helped put people into more house, but aside from ARMS and no down payments, most represent a tiny fraction of home mortgages. But they also cut both ways. ARMS mean that when interest rates rise, it will pain many home owners. Demand will shrink, and home prices will drop. At the end of the day, over a long enough time line, people cannot pay for more house than they can afford. A family making $2MM in 30 years cannot pay $3MM in expenses throughout that time. Something will act externally to adjust the issue before it gets too large. That's the whole idea behind credit reporting.
I think you're wrong about that. It may be true for the middle class (stagnant income growth for past 25 years) but the income of the top earners has skyrocketed. This is off the top of my head, but in 1980 the average CEO earned, i think, 20 times more than his average employee. Today that number is 400 times. These are the people that allow for the "top 3% pay top x% in taxes" arguments.
The truth is, it doesn't much make sense that property values would be outstripping the income increases. After all, property values are nothing more than what someone is willing to pay for your house. It simply doesn't make sense that property values would outpace income growth. That's just not how supply & demand works.
Yes, the wealthy citizens cost government less, but so what? It would not be _possible_ to be a wealthy American if it weren't for the poor and middle-class Americans. Wealthy citizens get the most benefit from the infrastructure. Middle class Americans like us drive on the interstates. Wealthy people make millions shipping goods on them. Middle class Americans serve in the military. Wealthy Americans protect their industries with the military. I could go on.
Furthermore, it's noteworthy to me that the right wing only wants equality when it saves them money. They were against equality in voting rights, equality in civil rights, equality in gay rights, equality in health care, equality in compensation, equality in criminal justice, etc.
It's absurd to most peoples sensibilities that we'd all make the same amount of money (even mine, and I'm pretty far left), but somehow not absurd to the right wing that we all pay the same taxes. Is this the kindness of their hearts? No. It will save them money.
I agree that the tax code is esoteric and convoluted, but it doesn't mean that a progressive tax doesn't work. It just means that a bloated tax code with tons of special case clauses for oil companies or sheep sheerers or steel companies, etc, doesn't work.
And by the way, I don't think you _actually_ paid federal income tax on a minimum wage income. I suppose I don't know your specific tax details but someone earning nothing but a single minimum wage job for 40 hours a week shouldn't have any tax liability. It will be deducted from their paychecks but it should all be returned at the end of the year.
The problem with property taxes is that it's very finite. Townships which are unable to levy income taxes have this problem all the time. Incomes can grow faster than property values.
Forgoing the income tax for a sales tax is a pretty bad idea.
First, the income tax is progressive. This would be impossible to achieve with sales tax. The only people that would benefit from a "flat" tax (sales or income) are those at the highest tax brackets. In order to replace the income lost from dropping taxes on the top 5%, taxes would have to be raised on the bottom 50%.
Second, a sales tax puts a disproportionate burden on the lowest income families. Those with low incomes--even up to $50k/yr for a single man--spend a very large proportion of their income. The lower your income, the higher percentage of it is spent. People making minimum wage are spending 100% of their pay checks.
Those making $1MM a year, on the other hand, may spend only a small fraction of their income.
And you can say that you would simply not charge sales tax on the things that poor people are spending their money on -- food, shelter and utilities -- but doing so would drastically reduce tax receipts. It would be impossible to exempt those things and the suggestion that it is possible is just used by proponents to try to sell their plan.
Furthermore, this is about Google. Corporations pay a pitifully small percentage of taxes in America. The percentage of taxes paid by corporations has dropped dramatically since the 1950's. Your notion that double taxation is a serious problem is just plain wrong. The tax code currently incentivizes businesses to invest in capital expenditures, R&D, etc.
In summary, the only people that want a sales tax are those that don't understand it's implications and those that could pay less taxes by shifting the tax burden more on the lower & middle classes.
The notion that there is tax injustice because the top minority of Americans pays the majority of taxes is absurd. The people at the top of the food chain reap the highest rewards of our society. Without our national infrastructure, they wouldn't be able to make and horde millions or billions of dollars. They SHOULD pay a tax burden that more closely resembles their share of the US pie, not necessarily their share of the US Population.
I can [not!] speak for myself when I say that even if you don't buy the OS, you can still be very easily financially tied to MS. Both in terms of hardware purchases and software purchases that are windows-only.
I probably have $1k in windows software.
Of course, I don't understand the rabid microsoft-hating to begin with. Their product works fine for me. I can't tell you the last time I had a system crash (opposed to an application crash), or the last time I was infected with spyware or a virus. Also, my computer runs at a perfectly acceptable clip, there's an entire ecosystem of software and peripherals, not to mention support and documentation. I know that if I have a problem w/ windows, office, etc, SOMEBODY has had that problem before and Google can probably explain it to me.
I'll probably be labeled as a Troll because only on slashdot can you be a troll for writing a positive review of a perfectly acceptable software package. Cheers!
I can say from personal experience that Nanos are in many ways indestructible. Even if their LCD breaks the device will still play music and can take serious abuse. I read a website once where they tried throwing it up into the air as high as they could and having it bounce on cement; running over it with a car; stomping on it; etc; and the Nano still played.
It illustrates what my philosophy has been since the iPod was introduced: a hard drive in your pocket sounds like a dumb idea to me. Eventually all iPods will be flash based for that reason.
What a hyperbole. I've used Vista and I've used ME. ME was, literally, an afterthought. Some middle manager thought it would be too long before XP is released and decided to give the Win9x tree another go.
And I may have been murky about this but I fully support what Dell is doing, both their current plans and the future course that they indicate.
And you're right that I don't use Linux as a desktop OS. But I would if it offered me what Windows does, which is familiarity and portability.
This is a very imperfect analogy but bear with me: Windows is the car. There are many flaws. Linux wants to be a hover-craft that compels users to see that there is a different way that is greater than a car. Linux is actually a segway, which may be beautifully engineered, and it may be greater than a car, but it's no hover-craft.
From a business POV, of _course_ perephial makers don't support linux. It's just a business decision. It doesn't really make sense to devote resources to what currently amounts to a fringe market. Yes, that's the chicken/egg problem again. But once again, prime the market. This goes all the way back to my specific example. If I were the god in charge of linux, I would flatten it a bit. There's too many fucking distros. It clutters the market, provides little benefit to consumers, and divides development efforts. Take the efforts saved by doing this and channel them into an army of driver writers.
From personal experience I understand that writing drivers--especially reverse engineering them--can be mundane and not at all sexy. It's not the dev work most devs like doing. But I think it's by far the number one thing you can do to emulate the success of windows. This is the "it just works" idea. Nothing new here, but it's simply not being done.
Furthermore, if I were the god that controlled linux, I would abandon the religious ties to Unix because who the hell cares about Unix? Not your target market. Give users drive letters. Are drive letters the most elegant solution from an engineering POV? No. Do users care? No. I would do everything I could do to give users a windows-esque experience, with linux powering everything under the hood. I would marginalize the CLI like windows has done. I would provide easy ways to share a computer w/ family members (Switch User in windows), I would worry less about ACLs and CLIs and Dameons and worry more about user-facing things that they actually care about.
And frankly, your notion that Linux is already more usable than Windows, IMO, is the reason the vast population will never agree with you. Until you accept that Microsoft has set the baseline, you'll never beat them. Yes, maybe if this was 1980 and linux was competing with Mac and PC to be the dominant PC platform you'd be able to make a credible case. But Microsoft is not going away. Even if it does (and it's not) its impact has been made. To users, a "PC" is Windows. They are one in the same.
I can't help but think that the linux guys just don't get that. They just don't get that microsoft has set the baseline. That trying to win users over to a new paradigm--revolution--isn't going to work. Throw them a fucking bone. Make it easy on them to switch. Gain traction. Then, slowly, incrementally, change things.
Here's my opinion on Linux. Let me preface this by saying I have found Knoppix to be an invaluable tool in fixing broken Windows installs, and I have a basic grip of compiling and installing a distro and using XAMPP to build up my technology stack. This is all I need to know since my job is writing new software, not administering existing software.
I also have a lot of experience writing windows-based apps.
That being said, my opinion as a long time slashdotter is that the Linux community _hates_ Microsoft so much that they, in effect, throw the baby out with the bathwater. They're unable to see that much of what Microsoft does is actually what consumers want. They ignore this fact with two primary methods of logic: First, that users don't WANT what Microsoft gives them, they just don't have any other choice. Second, that Microsofts products shouldn't be respected because they couldn't stand on their own two feet. The second fact is a corollary from the opinion that since Microsoft has no cred on the tough engineering issues (security is the typical example), they are not the people one should be taking direction from.
My opinion is that Linux would be much more successful today if it weren't for this mindset. This has worked to bring in the most devout microsoft haters but it's at the expense of the larger population. A left wing candidate could rally the Nader-esque base by adopting a socialist platform, and they'd get a hugely devoted base, but they'd do it at the expense of the vast population that's turned off by their views.
Specifically, Microsoft makes software that the average user finds usable. The obvious proof of this is that they do, in fact, use it every day. Can Word or Excel be improved? Yes. Absolutely. But are they still used to produce millions of vital documents daily? Again, Absolutely.
I once built a website that completely ripped off the Amazon shopping cart system (no One Click, of course). The client at first objected to my plan. It would be JUST LIKE amazon he complained. I reminded him that when you walk into Krogers (grocer story chain) you don't say "Oh my god! Look at their checkout! They copied that EXACTLY from Wal Mart!" In fact, it's an unconscious relief. It's familar.
Microsoft had the benefit of setting the baseline. Most people know the concept of a personal computer only thru the offering of Microsoft.
Linux, IMO, has spent too much time trying for revolution and not enough working on evolution. To a Linux enthusiast they seem to come off to me as somebody that desperately wants to flick the light switch on and display a whole new word to the User. They want to bust the paradigms. These are noble goals but they require a leap of faith on the part of the user that the user isn't particularly interested in making.
My suggestions to the linux community would be to really examine what works about Windows. Like it or not, there's a lot. There really is. Don't get hung up over how much trouble the Registry has caused. Don't get jaded by UAC. Don't box it in based on it's security flaws. Reduce it to the DNA that makes it usable to the average joe.
Then copy it. Rip it off. They say that good writers borrow from other writers and great writers steal from them outright. Well, steal from them outright. To do this you might have to abandon the moral high ground that lets you look down your nose at Microsofts culture of "innovation by acquisition" but WHO CARES?
The issue it seems to me is that the Linux movemement often comes across to me as "Rule One, Hate (and beat) Microsoft." "Rule Two: Build great software."
The only way to succeed is to really, REALLY, drop Rule one. Or at least swap the order of the two rules.
Users want ubiquitous hardware. (Yes, I'm using ubiquitous in a wrong way but you get it). They want to not worry about what's under the hood. They want it to work. They want to be able to share shit with their friends. Etc.
Right now, Linux is just not there. It's not. Don't hate me for sa
One user said "Dell should do this! It's important! I'm running linux on my dell laptop but my WiFi/Video wasn't supported."
Then the next guy said, basically, "That's your fault. You should know better (like I did) to get nVidia and Intel"
Then I replied that no, you SHOULDN'T ask a customer to know better.
There you go, cliffs-notes for a 1000 word thread.
Now, of COURSE Microsoft doesn't write all the device drivers--but they _DO_ write generic drivers that work quite well for devices like CD-Roms. And they _DO_ take pains not to break existing drivers.
And you're right, it _IS_ a chicken-and-egg thing which is why I suggested people should stop evangelizing and start writing drivers. Because the only way to really overcome the chicken/egg problem is to prime it yourself. A community for user generated content will need to be "primed" with enough content to draw viewers in order to get others to generate content. An online poker site employs props to fill up tables until they have enough users to fill tables organically (props != shills). Etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone that wants a glimpse of how industry & life worked in the USSR should check out the book Armageddon Averted by Stephen Kotkin.
He describes in that book how typewriters were more closely controlled in the USSR than assault weapons.
Another interesting--but totally unrelated tidbit--is that the factories were rewarded based on tonnage produced. So all the steel companies would only produce 1" thick steel plating. There was a dearth of thin steel sheeting.
So car companies would have to buy the thicker steel and mill it down to a workable thickness..
There's hundreds of anecdotes like that. It blew my mind.
Yes, the VBA/Automation is a big part of what's missing.
But as others have said here, Google Documents doesn't even have Find & Replace capabilities yet. (They only have a "Replace All" option and even that is "experimental").
This is the future, I think. I really do. But not today. Not yet. It's just not ready.
The "native" Google format is to have your data locked away on their servers. Yes, you can export it. But you can just as easily save a word document in RTF. ...Just a thought...
There is _no_ Google Apps Appliance. You're confusing this with their search appliance. If they did have such a server, I think it would be fine. It's no different than using an Exchange server, for example.
So, I'd take your own advice if I were you: Please visit google and study their google apps model: http://www.google.com/a/enterprise/
That data must be given to the public if it's requested doesn't mean that such data is "already public." Not at all. If that were the case, why not just setup a huge anon FTP?
FOIA requests are vetted. The data is scrutinized. On any given document, huge parts of it may be redacted before being given to the petitioner. This suggests that even in "public" documents, much security is required.
There are many regulations regarding the security and control of US Government data. Approved systems. Approved technologies. Approved standards.
And how does FOIA have anything to do with this? Surely the FAA Has confidential and secret documents. Even if 99% is available to the public, are you just going to glaze over the other 1%? Personally, I doubt the numbers are that high. FOIA requests are often returned redacted, meaning that there's a lot of confidential information peppered about.
We're talking about US Government documents being stored on non-government servers. First, I'd be really surprised if something like that was even legal. Second, I have real issues even if it IS legal.
.txt or .pdf that's emailed around (probably using google servers again, so it's moot).
If the "ditch" office/windows they're going to have to use GMail for ALL DOCUMENTS. Anything else would have to be like
Furthermore, tell me this slashdot: Why is it better to be locked-in to Googles proprietary software instead of Microsofts?
As others have said, this would only be a good idea, IMO, as a "GApps Appliance" that can be properly audited and approved by US Government security experts.
AMT, like the EITC, mortgage interest deduction, etc, are just patches that had to be added every now and again to keep the whole thing from just falling apart.
The AMT in our current system was a good idea when it was created. It worked well. It helped prevent exactly what we've been deriding--the wealthiest people escaping their responsibilities.
The real flaw is that it has no provision to handle inflation. If its trigger point was adjusted upwards as the mean income rose, it would work fine.
Of course, a better idea is just to scrap the tax code and fix the things that make the AMT necessary.
Unfortunately, we have, what, a $3tn budget? Think about the special interests there. That's enough money to give 3 Million people One million dollars every year. With money in politics the way it is, there's no way we could do any meaningful tax reform.
Which, if you ask me, is why we should have publicly financed elections in this country. Gag orders on political speech for 6 months before every national election and each candidate gets a check from the government. Right now it's easier to get votes than money. That makes doners the real constituency. Special interests. The only way to fix that is going to be to completely remove money from politics. When you cut out cancer you can't just cut our part of it. It will have no effect. McCain/Feingold just proves that the money finds other cracks.
You fail to grasp the true definition of "Value."
Go call an appraiser. Ask them what the definition of appraised value is. They will tell you that, based on data from what people have recently paid for similar properties, a value is determined that, once adjusted in either direction foe certain variables not able to be matched in comparable sales, appears to be what someone at that moment would ACTUALLY PAY for your home.
Fair Market Value is just that, Market Value. It is, once more, based on what someone will actually pay for it.
If nobody is willing to pay a higher price, that price will never be attained.
In a small excercise to illustrate this, imagine an island nation secluded from the rest of the world where there are only 10 people possibly capable of paying $1,000,000 for a house. Imagine for control purposes that a person can only own one house.
Now imagine that there are 11 identical mansions built. As time goes on, 10 are purchased by the 10 millionaires at $1MM a piece. Tell me: is the 11th house still worth 1MM? If nobody can PAY the $1MM, is that truly what the house is worth? The answer, of course, is no. After all, what good would a worth of $1MM be if it could only ever be sold for, say, $800k?
Now, when the market caught up--one mansion burnt down or another person became wealthy--the house would go up in value quickly to $1MM.
In summary, demand drives the cost, not the supply. If you build a $1MM house and nobody is willing to pay $1MM, you're out of luck. Supply is the constraint and Demand is the actor.
In summary, a home values simply are not growing faster than peoples ability to pay for them.
Yes, creative financing has helped put people into more house, but aside from ARMS and no down payments, most represent a tiny fraction of home mortgages. But they also cut both ways. ARMS mean that when interest rates rise, it will pain many home owners. Demand will shrink, and home prices will drop. At the end of the day, over a long enough time line, people cannot pay for more house than they can afford. A family making $2MM in 30 years cannot pay $3MM in expenses throughout that time. Something will act externally to adjust the issue before it gets too large. That's the whole idea behind credit reporting.
I think you're wrong about that. It may be true for the middle class (stagnant income growth for past 25 years) but the income of the top earners has skyrocketed. This is off the top of my head, but in 1980 the average CEO earned, i think, 20 times more than his average employee. Today that number is 400 times. These are the people that allow for the "top 3% pay top x% in taxes" arguments.
The truth is, it doesn't much make sense that property values would be outstripping the income increases. After all, property values are nothing more than what someone is willing to pay for your house. It simply doesn't make sense that property values would outpace income growth. That's just not how supply & demand works.
Yes, the wealthy citizens cost government less, but so what? It would not be _possible_ to be a wealthy American if it weren't for the poor and middle-class Americans. Wealthy citizens get the most benefit from the infrastructure. Middle class Americans like us drive on the interstates. Wealthy people make millions shipping goods on them. Middle class Americans serve in the military. Wealthy Americans protect their industries with the military. I could go on.
Furthermore, it's noteworthy to me that the right wing only wants equality when it saves them money. They were against equality in voting rights, equality in civil rights, equality in gay rights, equality in health care, equality in compensation, equality in criminal justice, etc.
It's absurd to most peoples sensibilities that we'd all make the same amount of money (even mine, and I'm pretty far left), but somehow not absurd to the right wing that we all pay the same taxes. Is this the kindness of their hearts? No. It will save them money.
I agree that the tax code is esoteric and convoluted, but it doesn't mean that a progressive tax doesn't work. It just means that a bloated tax code with tons of special case clauses for oil companies or sheep sheerers or steel companies, etc, doesn't work.
And by the way, I don't think you _actually_ paid federal income tax on a minimum wage income. I suppose I don't know your specific tax details but someone earning nothing but a single minimum wage job for 40 hours a week shouldn't have any tax liability. It will be deducted from their paychecks but it should all be returned at the end of the year.
The problem with property taxes is that it's very finite. Townships which are unable to levy income taxes have this problem all the time. Incomes can grow faster than property values.
Forgoing the income tax for a sales tax is a pretty bad idea.
First, the income tax is progressive. This would be impossible to achieve with sales tax. The only people that would benefit from a "flat" tax (sales or income) are those at the highest tax brackets. In order to replace the income lost from dropping taxes on the top 5%, taxes would have to be raised on the bottom 50%.
Second, a sales tax puts a disproportionate burden on the lowest income families. Those with low incomes--even up to $50k/yr for a single man--spend a very large proportion of their income. The lower your income, the higher percentage of it is spent. People making minimum wage are spending 100% of their pay checks.
Those making $1MM a year, on the other hand, may spend only a small fraction of their income.
And you can say that you would simply not charge sales tax on the things that poor people are spending their money on -- food, shelter and utilities -- but doing so would drastically reduce tax receipts. It would be impossible to exempt those things and the suggestion that it is possible is just used by proponents to try to sell their plan.
Furthermore, this is about Google. Corporations pay a pitifully small percentage of taxes in America. The percentage of taxes paid by corporations has dropped dramatically since the 1950's. Your notion that double taxation is a serious problem is just plain wrong. The tax code currently incentivizes businesses to invest in capital expenditures, R&D, etc.
In summary, the only people that want a sales tax are those that don't understand it's implications and those that could pay less taxes by shifting the tax burden more on the lower & middle classes.
The notion that there is tax injustice because the top minority of Americans pays the majority of taxes is absurd. The people at the top of the food chain reap the highest rewards of our society. Without our national infrastructure, they wouldn't be able to make and horde millions or billions of dollars. They SHOULD pay a tax burden that more closely resembles their share of the US pie, not necessarily their share of the US Population.
I can [not!] speak for myself when I say that even if you don't buy the OS, you can still be very easily financially tied to MS. Both in terms of hardware purchases and software purchases that are windows-only.
I probably have $1k in windows software.
Of course, I don't understand the rabid microsoft-hating to begin with. Their product works fine for me. I can't tell you the last time I had a system crash (opposed to an application crash), or the last time I was infected with spyware or a virus. Also, my computer runs at a perfectly acceptable clip, there's an entire ecosystem of software and peripherals, not to mention support and documentation. I know that if I have a problem w/ windows, office, etc, SOMEBODY has had that problem before and Google can probably explain it to me.
I'll probably be labeled as a Troll because only on slashdot can you be a troll for writing a positive review of a perfectly acceptable software package. Cheers!
The atomic number of zinc is 30?
Do you really think you need to 'splain what a 486SX chip is? Tell me, what was the 486DX? Was that a predecessor to my toaster oven?
I can say from personal experience that Nanos are in many ways indestructible. Even if their LCD breaks the device will still play music and can take serious abuse. I read a website once where they tried throwing it up into the air as high as they could and having it bounce on cement; running over it with a car; stomping on it; etc; and the Nano still played.
It illustrates what my philosophy has been since the iPod was introduced: a hard drive in your pocket sounds like a dumb idea to me. Eventually all iPods will be flash based for that reason.
Heresy! Heresy I say!
What a hyperbole. I've used Vista and I've used ME. ME was, literally, an afterthought. Some middle manager thought it would be too long before XP is released and decided to give the Win9x tree another go.
Sell your +5 Insightful FUD elsewhere, please.
Sorry.. That's a string bet. This isn't the wild west. You must make your wager in one continuous play.
I'm a windows user and indifferent about it.
And I may have been murky about this but I fully support what Dell is doing, both their current plans and the future course that they indicate.
And you're right that I don't use Linux as a desktop OS. But I would if it offered me what Windows does, which is familiarity and portability.
This is a very imperfect analogy but bear with me: Windows is the car. There are many flaws. Linux wants to be a hover-craft that compels users to see that there is a different way that is greater than a car. Linux is actually a segway, which may be beautifully engineered, and it may be greater than a car, but it's no hover-craft.
From a business POV, of _course_ perephial makers don't support linux. It's just a business decision. It doesn't really make sense to devote resources to what currently amounts to a fringe market. Yes, that's the chicken/egg problem again. But once again, prime the market. This goes all the way back to my specific example. If I were the god in charge of linux, I would flatten it a bit. There's too many fucking distros. It clutters the market, provides little benefit to consumers, and divides development efforts. Take the efforts saved by doing this and channel them into an army of driver writers.
From personal experience I understand that writing drivers--especially reverse engineering them--can be mundane and not at all sexy. It's not the dev work most devs like doing. But I think it's by far the number one thing you can do to emulate the success of windows. This is the "it just works" idea. Nothing new here, but it's simply not being done.
Furthermore, if I were the god that controlled linux, I would abandon the religious ties to Unix because who the hell cares about Unix? Not your target market. Give users drive letters. Are drive letters the most elegant solution from an engineering POV? No. Do users care? No. I would do everything I could do to give users a windows-esque experience, with linux powering everything under the hood. I would marginalize the CLI like windows has done. I would provide easy ways to share a computer w/ family members (Switch User in windows), I would worry less about ACLs and CLIs and Dameons and worry more about user-facing things that they actually care about.
And frankly, your notion that Linux is already more usable than Windows, IMO, is the reason the vast population will never agree with you. Until you accept that Microsoft has set the baseline, you'll never beat them. Yes, maybe if this was 1980 and linux was competing with Mac and PC to be the dominant PC platform you'd be able to make a credible case. But Microsoft is not going away. Even if it does (and it's not) its impact has been made. To users, a "PC" is Windows. They are one in the same.
I can't help but think that the linux guys just don't get that. They just don't get that microsoft has set the baseline. That trying to win users over to a new paradigm--revolution--isn't going to work. Throw them a fucking bone. Make it easy on them to switch. Gain traction. Then, slowly, incrementally, change things.
What makes you think he wasn't actually browsing for gay porn?
Here's my opinion on Linux. Let me preface this by saying I have found Knoppix to be an invaluable tool in fixing broken Windows installs, and I have a basic grip of compiling and installing a distro and using XAMPP to build up my technology stack. This is all I need to know since my job is writing new software, not administering existing software.
I also have a lot of experience writing windows-based apps.
That being said, my opinion as a long time slashdotter is that the Linux community _hates_ Microsoft so much that they, in effect, throw the baby out with the bathwater. They're unable to see that much of what Microsoft does is actually what consumers want. They ignore this fact with two primary methods of logic: First, that users don't WANT what Microsoft gives them, they just don't have any other choice. Second, that Microsofts products shouldn't be respected because they couldn't stand on their own two feet. The second fact is a corollary from the opinion that since Microsoft has no cred on the tough engineering issues (security is the typical example), they are not the people one should be taking direction from.
My opinion is that Linux would be much more successful today if it weren't for this mindset. This has worked to bring in the most devout microsoft haters but it's at the expense of the larger population. A left wing candidate could rally the Nader-esque base by adopting a socialist platform, and they'd get a hugely devoted base, but they'd do it at the expense of the vast population that's turned off by their views.
Specifically, Microsoft makes software that the average user finds usable. The obvious proof of this is that they do, in fact, use it every day. Can Word or Excel be improved? Yes. Absolutely. But are they still used to produce millions of vital documents daily? Again, Absolutely.
I once built a website that completely ripped off the Amazon shopping cart system (no One Click, of course). The client at first objected to my plan. It would be JUST LIKE amazon he complained. I reminded him that when you walk into Krogers (grocer story chain) you don't say "Oh my god! Look at their checkout! They copied that EXACTLY from Wal Mart!" In fact, it's an unconscious relief. It's familar.
Microsoft had the benefit of setting the baseline. Most people know the concept of a personal computer only thru the offering of Microsoft.
Linux, IMO, has spent too much time trying for revolution and not enough working on evolution. To a Linux enthusiast they seem to come off to me as somebody that desperately wants to flick the light switch on and display a whole new word to the User. They want to bust the paradigms. These are noble goals but they require a leap of faith on the part of the user that the user isn't particularly interested in making.
My suggestions to the linux community would be to really examine what works about Windows. Like it or not, there's a lot. There really is. Don't get hung up over how much trouble the Registry has caused. Don't get jaded by UAC. Don't box it in based on it's security flaws. Reduce it to the DNA that makes it usable to the average joe.
Then copy it. Rip it off. They say that good writers borrow from other writers and great writers steal from them outright. Well, steal from them outright. To do this you might have to abandon the moral high ground that lets you look down your nose at Microsofts culture of "innovation by acquisition" but WHO CARES?
The issue it seems to me is that the Linux movemement often comes across to me as "Rule One, Hate (and beat) Microsoft." "Rule Two: Build great software."
The only way to succeed is to really, REALLY, drop Rule one. Or at least swap the order of the two rules.
Users want ubiquitous hardware. (Yes, I'm using ubiquitous in a wrong way but you get it). They want to not worry about what's under the hood. They want it to work. They want to be able to share shit with their friends. Etc.
Right now, Linux is just not there. It's not. Don't hate me for sa
Look at this thread.
One user said "Dell should do this! It's important! I'm running linux on my dell laptop but my WiFi/Video wasn't supported."
Then the next guy said, basically, "That's your fault. You should know better (like I did) to get nVidia and Intel"
Then I replied that no, you SHOULDN'T ask a customer to know better.
There you go, cliffs-notes for a 1000 word thread.
Now, of COURSE Microsoft doesn't write all the device drivers--but they _DO_ write generic drivers that work quite well for devices like CD-Roms. And they _DO_ take pains not to break existing drivers.
And you're right, it _IS_ a chicken-and-egg thing which is why I suggested people should stop evangelizing and start writing drivers. Because the only way to really overcome the chicken/egg problem is to prime it yourself. A community for user generated content will need to be "primed" with enough content to draw viewers in order to get others to generate content. An online poker site employs props to fill up tables until they have enough users to fill tables organically (props != shills). Etc.
I agree! Which is why I wrote what I did!
This complexity must be abstracted away in order to make linux successful on the desktop.