If an incandescent costs you 50 cents and lasts one year, while a CFL costs $5 and lasts ten years
The problem is that this is not true. Incandescents do last longer than a year.
Besides, dirt cheap CFLs (the ones I have tried) do not last (average) ten years. Unless, of course, the last few last for 100:-)
I do not claim CFLs are bad for everything. I claim there are a lot of cases where incandescents just are the best option.
For example my cold shed. It has 40W incandescent, it is on maybe 30 hours a year. CFL's would not work as they turns on too slow - or you'd have to buy expensive CFL. Math exercise: calculate how long it takes for "break even". Exercise 2: Two automated lamps, maybe 300 hours/year.
There are no printers "rated" for Linux. Nobody sells printers "this will work with Linux". Besides, Postscript printers are expensive.
Embedded Linux != Linux. Embedded Linux is not designed to be updated (against security holes).
Quite a few behind your link do require either out-of-the distro-of-your-choice source-code-compile or "I have to configure lirc correctly to use the remote control." Neither is acceptable for average joe.
4. They are not rated for 70C. If they burn up your house, well the insurance company...
5. No, it is not. The heatpump is not (maintenance) free. I do not claim 100% return rate for the losses, just that the "savings" of a CFL are marginal at best.
7. Almost none of my incandescent last less than a year. Every CFL I have had has broken within five years, many within a year.
8. Incandescent does not need recycling. CFL does. This is not rocket science.
9. Yeah, *you* do not => nobody does... apparently you would like to prohibit meat/cars/furs/alcohol/... as "you do not need it"?
10. They will break up fast if turned on-off repeatedly.
I am happy to hear CFLs are a good for you. Unfortunately they are not for *me*. Why make a law prohibiting me from using incandescent?
Problems with CFLs 1. They light up slow (or cost *a lot* more). 2. The advertised "equivalent" wattage is bullshit. 15W CFL matches 60W - maybe. Not 75W as they claim. 3. CFLs do not work in cold (below zero C) - light up time is tens of minutes. 4. CFLs do not work in saunas (too hot). 5. Where I live, nine months (out of 12) the heat generated is not wasted and the rest three months you barely need any lights at all. 7. They do not last "10 years", just a bit longer than incandescent. 8. They are expensive (to society) to recycle. 9. They cannot be dimmed (or cost *hugely* more). 10. They cannot be used with motion sensors.
Hey, incandescents costs around 50 cents a piece. Good CFL's are over ten times more expensive. CFLs just do not make sense here where I live.
If Linux is confined to the cheapest possible HW it is not going to be liked - cheap HW is flaky.
Add to that the problems with too many incompatible distros and kernels (drivers for the HW do not even work on other distros) and the perception of Linux will be "cheap" or "toy". I think it already is, unfortunately. And somewhat undeservedly.
I drive bicycle on ice (or snow) every day (for a few days more).
There is a noticeable difference in favour of mountain bike because it has wider wheels and therefore bigger friction. You really should try spiked wheels, however.
I can name several FOSS drivers which have been outside kernel tree for several years (webcams, dvb tuners,...) so clearly either the requirements are too strict or something else is wrong. Anyway it means your document is worthless.
*I* blame kernel developers who insist on breaking binary drivers on purpose.
Oh, on the security. Which one you think is better: un-patched kernels or binary-only drivers?
Today there was yet again update on the Ubuntu kernel... there is no way I am going to compile three or four drivers on two different Eee's. Last time it took days (old one did not compile, new one did not work). And I am not the only one.
Show me the "fairly well defined procedure". I have never seen one.
WHQL certification does not give a damn about (perceived) quality and it is not necessary for build-in HW.
I do not blame kernel devs for not merging Asus drivers, quite the contrary. I blame them for making Asus drivers + kernel updates an impossible combination (for average joe).
Problem is also hardware. Nobody sells "Linux printer" or "Linux DVB card", or whatnot.
They cannot. If they give the driver with the HW it will not work! Don't fool yourself that people are going to compile it. Don't fool yourself thinking it will get to kernel tree immediately (Asus drivers are not, over a year later).
Linux proved that Windows versions outsell Linux by 20-to-1 ratio, even when Windows version costs $50 more.
Linux failed.
Even later this year people are going to be willing to shed $50 (or $100) more for the Windows version.
The only way Linux can compete is "wow" factor and let's be honest - it does not have it (or the netbooks did not have it). "It just works" - but apparently that is not enough.
Slashdot Mirror
If an incandescent costs you 50 cents and lasts one year, while a CFL costs $5 and lasts ten years
The problem is that this is not true. Incandescents do last longer than a year.
Besides, dirt cheap CFLs (the ones I have tried) do not last (average) ten years. Unless, of course, the last few last for 100 :-)
I do not claim CFLs are bad for everything. I claim there are a lot of cases where incandescents just are the best option.
For example my cold shed. It has 40W incandescent, it is on maybe 30 hours a year. CFL's would not work as they turns on too slow - or you'd have to buy expensive CFL. Math exercise: calculate how long it takes for "break even". Exercise 2: Two automated lamps, maybe 300 hours/year.
You do not address any of my complaints.
There are no printers "rated" for Linux. Nobody sells printers "this will work with Linux". Besides, Postscript printers are expensive.
Embedded Linux != Linux. Embedded Linux is not designed to be updated (against security holes).
Quite a few behind your link do require either out-of-the distro-of-your-choice source-code-compile or "I have to configure lirc correctly to use the remote control." Neither is acceptable for average joe.
4. They are not rated for 70C. If they burn up your house, well the insurance company ...
5. No, it is not. The heatpump is not (maintenance) free. I do not claim 100% return rate for the losses, just that the "savings" of a CFL are marginal at best.
7. Almost none of my incandescent last less than a year. Every CFL I have had has broken within five years, many within a year.
8. Incandescent does not need recycling. CFL does. This is not rocket science.
9. Yeah, *you* do not => nobody does ... apparently you would like to prohibit meat/cars/furs/alcohol/... as "you do not need it"?
10. They will break up fast if turned on-off repeatedly.
I am happy to hear CFLs are a good for you. Unfortunately they are not for *me*. Why make a law prohibiting me from using incandescent?
EU is making incandescents illegal (to sell).
Problems with CFLs
1. They light up slow (or cost *a lot* more).
2. The advertised "equivalent" wattage is bullshit. 15W CFL matches 60W - maybe. Not 75W as they claim.
3. CFLs do not work in cold (below zero C) - light up time is tens of minutes.
4. CFLs do not work in saunas (too hot).
5. Where I live, nine months (out of 12) the heat generated is not wasted and the rest three months you barely need any lights at all.
7. They do not last "10 years", just a bit longer than incandescent.
8. They are expensive (to society) to recycle.
9. They cannot be dimmed (or cost *hugely* more).
10. They cannot be used with motion sensors.
Hey, incandescents costs around 50 cents a piece. Good CFL's are over ten times more expensive. CFLs just do not make sense here where I live.
I fully agree with you on that.
But then, is this something to aim for?
If Linux is confined to the cheapest possible HW it is not going to be liked - cheap HW is flaky.
Add to that the problems with too many incompatible distros and kernels (drivers for the HW do not even work on other distros) and the perception of Linux will be "cheap" or "toy". I think it already is, unfortunately. And somewhat undeservedly.
I'd say Microsoft does not have any "solution" in which SSD would help.
OTOH Sun does ... http://www.sun.com/storage/flash/. YMMV.
I do not believe in the hypothesis.
Besides, Sweden does have habeas corpus.
I drive bicycle on ice (or snow) every day (for a few days more).
There is a noticeable difference in favour of mountain bike because it has wider wheels and therefore bigger friction. You really should try spiked wheels, however.
I use Ubuntu because it is the best OS for the Eee.
But I am not blind for the problems it has. I have balls to admit that even "the best" or the one I use has severe problems.
Most importantly, I think the situation could be improved a lot.
I can name several FOSS drivers which have been outside kernel tree for several years (webcams, dvb tuners, ...) so clearly either the requirements are too strict or something else is wrong. Anyway it means your document is worthless.
*I* blame kernel developers who insist on breaking binary drivers on purpose.
Oh, on the security. Which one you think is better: un-patched kernels or binary-only drivers?
Today there was yet again update on the Ubuntu kernel ... there is no way I am going to compile three or four drivers on two different Eee's. Last time it took days (old one did not compile, new one did not work). And I am not the only one.
I would not be surprised to hear Microsoft lying.
But I can confirm myself: every single Linux Netbook that was available on the stores have disappeared on favour of Windows ones.
Same for 3G contracts, year ago they sold 3G contracts with Linux. Nobody does that now, all have Windows.
60% ... no, the former would not have happened. The latter maybe, but the former not.
Show me the "fairly well defined procedure". I have never seen one.
WHQL certification does not give a damn about (perceived) quality and it is not necessary for build-in HW.
I do not blame kernel devs for not merging Asus drivers, quite the contrary. I blame them for making Asus drivers + kernel updates an impossible combination (for average joe).
My point is that even less than $100 (v.s. $150) Windows would outsell Linux at least by 20-to-1.
While you go on blaming, Windows versions universally outsell by ratio of over 20-to-1.
Problem is not only the software.
Problem is also hardware. Nobody sells "Linux printer" or "Linux DVB card", or whatnot.
They cannot. If they give the driver with the HW it will not work! Don't fool yourself that people are going to compile it. Don't fool yourself thinking it will get to kernel tree immediately (Asus drivers are not, over a year later).
So 2010 is the year of Linux in Netbooks? :-)
At this very day Aspire One Linux is 250 euros, Windows XP is 300 (Linux 16G SSD, Windows 160G HD).
Windows version oversells probably by the quoted 20-to-1 ratio.
No, people are going to shed the $50 for Windows, no matter what.
Even $100 Linux netbook would change nothing, people would still be buying $500 Windows Netbooks.
At this very moment Aspire One is 250 euros (Linux) v.s. 300 (Windows) and we know that the Windows version outsells by a factor over 20-to-1.
People demand Windows, they are willing to pay for it. I am certain even Microsoft is extremely surprised for that fact.
There are just too many horror stories of "tuning" the Linux.
Linux proved that Windows versions outsell Linux by 20-to-1 ratio, even when Windows version costs $50 more.
Linux failed.
Even later this year people are going to be willing to shed $50 (or $100) more for the Windows version.
The only way Linux can compete is "wow" factor and let's be honest - it does not have it (or the netbooks did not have it). "It just works" - but apparently that is not enough.
Or maybe people stopped buying for Linux versions soon after Windows version came available.
Year earlier they were a hit, there is no denying that. So big a hit that HP is selling one now.
Now in street shops the Linux version has gone away.
Apparently people were willing to pay for Windows (Linux is still cheaper in web shops and I do not doubt the 20-to-1 ratio).
No.
Acer Aspire One with Linux is 250 euros. With Windows (XP) it is 300. (Linux has 16G SSD, XP has 160G hard disk)
Still I do not doubt the 20-to-1 ratio.
Well, Acer said Linux line is not profitable enough.
MSI said return rate of Linux is too high.
So apparently there is no incentive for ANY manufacturer.
Maybe, just maybe, people are actually willing to pay $50 for Windows.
After all, we have heard proportionally high number of "failed" stories with Linux Netbooks.
Now Linux proponents should try to find out why (Linux is not ready). I have my usual suspects, but that's for another post.
I use VLC for DVD's as it works better than mplayer (subtitles, navigation, etc.).
Then, I have not tried all the different front ends to mplayer (and won't).
VLC 0.9.8 was on par with mpeg videos with mplayer, I would not be at all surprised if it had surpassed it.
Which means it is not good for general use within the next several months.
IMHO.
Not in Finland. The warrant would be certain, after all it seems clear that the mailboxes in the premises were used for drug trafficking.
Does os.fork() work in Windows too?
I am no fan of Python, but deliberately making incompatible dialects ...
Besides, processes are not threads (both have pros and cons).