I have that checkbox, they must have a very low definition of "contributed". Trolls in the comments seems to make the cut.
Same here for the last few weeks at least. It remains unticked.
And for the record, I turn adblock off on forums and sites that show some restraint with ads. But lets be honest.. Some do tend to abuse the concept of "ad supported" to the extent that the ads are article supported.
Wouldnt fedora be precisely the WRONG distro to use as a server on a network, given that it is a bleeding edge distro?
Well spotted. Nobody in their right mind is going to use a bleeding edge distro for this. There are exceptions though.. I think Nasa and a few others do use it, but they have the in house expertise to backport and maintain anything they like, which is not the norm by any stretch. I even saw the Fedora logo on the desktop of a movie CGI company in a video clip recently though, so YMMV.
Are you saying that people have no idea that they're imbibing concoctions that contain alcohol and caffeine, and that they further have no idea of the effects of those chemicals? That knowledge is the whole reason the stuff sells.
No. People buying these drinks know they have "an effect" Usually an enjoyable one at first. They do not necessarily think about that effect when pouring it down their neck. Or what happens to them when they drink a large number of these drinks. People in their late teens/early 20s do not have a great reputation for considerd actions when in a group, vying for each other to show how much more they can drink than their friends. Perhaps it's a cultural thing, but I doubt there is that much difference between young Americans and young English adults. And drinking too many alcoholic energy drinks is more of a group activity than something you do to unwind after a hard day.
If you imagine everybody is rational and looks at consequences carefully before engaging in such activities, you really need to get out more.
Getting more serious.. Why do you even question that there are millions of users. Ubuntu alone has stated counting 7-8 million regular users of the repositories, and it's default desktop is Gnome. And as Gnome is one of the big two, if not the most common desktop supplied with a distro, tens of millions is not difficult to justify as a probable user count. And even if you take the most pessimistic figures guessed at by the various web trackers, desktop Linux's 1% is 1% of a billion computer users. Do the math.
Really, if the version numbers are going to be this meaningless for tracking significant changes they should at least name them or come up with some other system. Something that let's people get interested and involved in the project and excited about the new release.
Since when have version numbers been consistently meaningful across more than one project/program? Just do like everybody else and see a new version number as an indicator that there is something different from the last version. Version numbers ARE meaningless.
Who the fuck wants either MythTV or Windows Media Center? What the hell is wrong with just opening your video files in a media player? Why the fuck would anyone want to make their computer work like a TV? What is a media center anyway?
You would be surprised how good it is. The ability to play all media on a TV set, or in advanced installs, to play all media on any TV set with a myth box connected is something that you can only appreciate fully once you live with it for a while. It's going to be one of my next projects. My current HTPC is only a fairly ordinary desktop PC connected to my TV set, but I can watch and record TV and radio, watch Youtube videos and other streamed content on my TV instead of on my computer, upscale DVDs, Watch all my Miro downloaded content as and when I like, and it gives much greater flexibility than anything on the market. My current one is Windows based, so I have to use a bunch of different apps to do everything, but I'm looking at using one of the Myth distros for my next build. One remote to rule them all.
FatELF could quite easily have been some attempt to make everyone's Linux take twice as long to download and use twice as much disk space. Or perhaps the person who developed it just can't accept that it's totally useless. Maybe there is no giant conspiracy to ruin Linux by stuffing it full of useless crap, actually people are just morons.
Here I agree. I haven't gone into it that much, but on the surface at least, it seems an over think to a problem that is not that much of a problem, and a developer that got upset because everybody didn't think his idea was as brilliant as he did.
What few here seem to appreciate, is that the kernel devs must get hundreds of "improvements" sent to them every day. A whole new revolutionary software installation system is just another installer. Kind of like stand up comedians getting jokes from cab drivers.
But we're discussing Linux here, not some proprietary OS. If you want foo, you 'aptitude install foo' and it just works. If it doesn't you build it yourself and it just works....and linux weenies wonder why users don't drop Windows and flock to Linux in droves.
True.. But we wonder more often why Windows weenies insist on cornering us and telling us loudly and aggressively that they are not going to use our OS, even when we didn't ask them to, while demanding we fix their computers. How come users of the biggest market share OS are so insecure?
The corollary to that rule is that many applications won't run because they're poorly architected and require administrative rights to run. Oh, sure, you can finagle around with permissions and get many of them to run, but is it really worth the time to work around broken software? (running Windows which itself is broken notwithstanding)
If it stops Doris in accounts getting the whole bloody network infected with conflicker because she used her kid's USB drive to bring her holiday snaps into work..
YES!!!
Check out the clean up costs for a bad infection some time. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/04/ealing_council_mystery_malware/ Is the inconvenience worth £500,000? Are USB drives now banned on pain of instant dismissal from the council networks? Somehow I doubt it.
Definitely missed their mark. Seriously, look at the "mentions" - Steve Ballmer. Would really need to see the way they worded the survey to see how that name made the list.
Are you kidding?? Steve is a fantastic Linux asset. The 235 patents story must have made way more column inches in the IT media that the release of a new kernel or the launch of compiz ever could. Even publications that never carry open source stories would have reported on this. The Linux shopping spree and the subsequent full stop and panicked withdrawal alone I'm sure did more to publicise Linux and GPL3 than a bunch of full page adverts. It's kind of the same as when the music and movie industries seed the media with stories about file sharing, and practically advertise the torrent apps and p2p systems.
Then how come it's the UK government that throws me in jail, if I refuse to pay the TV fee? You are pointing-out a differences that, in reality, make no difference whatsoever. The BBC is akin to Obama's "public option" healthcare. If it's optional, why is the government fining me $1000/year starting in 2011 (or else I'll be jailed).
No..
You get fined for using a TV without a license. You are not legally compelled to have a TV set. And if you have no set, you need no license.
And unless there was an extradition agreement with American and the UK I didn't know about, you are not going to get imprisoned for not having a UK TV license.
This is just like 1984 - redefining words in hopes people will be fooled.
Agreed. so stop redefining "Monopoly" and "Tax", and it will stop being like 1984.
The BBC is "independent" but still uses government-enforced fees.
Yep. Independent means that the government do not get to tell the BBC which issues it covers in the news programs, or stop it broadcasting anything embarrassing to the government with any more power than an ordinary citizen. If the government wants to stop a story in anything but very extraordinary circumstances, they have to go through the courts like anybody else.
The "option" is not optional since you'll be fined if you don't take it.
Wrong.
I can decide to not have a TV set, and not have a license. I have taken this route in the past. And I have never seen the inside of a prison. I can get a video display device with no ability to receive broadcast TV signals, and hook it up to a device that outputs pre recorded video signals, and I am exempt from any legislation to extract a license fee.
IT IS NOT COMPULSORY TO HAVE A TV. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT COMPULSORY TO HAVE A TV LICENSE.
No TV no license. No problem.
I don't have a ham radio license, but I don't have a ham radio either. I don't have a driving license, but as I don't own or operate a car, no problem. I don't have a firearms license, but then I don't have a gun either.
And I am still at large in the community.. See how it works?
When they ask for your annual TV license fee (tax) can you say "no"?
Yes.
Interesting definition of monopoly though.. A company who expects to be paid for products or services rendered.. Sorry.. Not a definition of a monopoly. Try again.
Then they hold a monopoly over your wallet. Even if you never, ever watch BBC, they still get paid.
Nope. You are perfectly entitled to have no TV set, and have no license. It is also perfectly legal to have a monitor without a TV tuner, and have a DVD player attached, which is exempt. I had no TV and no license for several years in my 20s, and nobody broke down the door to demand payment. And unlike the situation with satellite of cable, if you have a TV set, you can pick up the broadcast signal with no way of it being stopped, so you still have the ability to use a BBC channel, and in reality, the number of people who do not watch BBC broadcasting is so small, it may as well be non existent. Devil's advocate arguments do not apply.
I hate sports, so can I get money back from any newspaper I buy for the sports pages I'm not going to read? How about if I return the unread parts of the paper for a refund?
out We have the same situation with U.S. government schools, where even if I never went there, and never had any kids that went there (home or private-schooled), the local Uncle Sam school still has a monopoly over my wallet ($3500 each year).
No.. We have the same situation everywhere. Taxes are gathered to pay for the running of the country, and services that would be unprofitable, but are still essential. Everybody pays for the common good. That includes education, law enforcement, infrastructure production and maintenance, etc. Don't like it, buy your own island, and live on it alone for ever more. You can't avoid the education payment by not having kids, but you can avoid the TV license by not having a TV. So not the same thing.
Monopoly also does not mean "Paying for stuff I don't want to pay for". Try again.
I bet Microsoft and Comcast would kill for such a sweet deal.
I wouldn't. They have difficulty competing in anything approaching a level playing field as it is. And if their profit margins were heavily capped, they would not be the companies they are today. If they were controlled to the extent that the BBC is, they would not be happy at all. They do have some market distorting advantages though.. Are you suggesting that these be removed?
So Microsoft would have to spin off Office into a separate company that was independently run, and independently controlled, which means offering Office to OSX and Linux users too. Not being able to have incompatible file formats or special protocols etc.. Transparent non preferential pricing to OEMS would also sting a bit. And things like paying for advertising with OEMs would also be a bit tricky.
And Comcast would have to provide competition encouraging services like internet access at cost to all competitors for resale under their own branding, with no ability to degrade, cap, or modify it in any way. I'm sure they are just begging for that..
In bad times, the BBC is pretty much guaranteed money. So yes, it is an advantage there. But in good times, privately run broadcasting companies make way more money from advertising, so they can pay for better imported TV series, Big budget popular movies, Highly profitable sporting events, and charge more for this programming when they can pretty much guarantee the viewing figures. But many don't make much new programming themselves. The BBC does. The BBC is also bound to provide a more varied schedule than other channels.
The BBC is a service. As such, it is obliged to offer programming that is not profitable. So public information, party political broadcasts etc..
(No you don't Windows of Cable TV, but yes you still have to pay us $100 each year.)
Do yo want to rephrase that into something that actually makes sense?
So I ask again, how exactly is the BBC a monopoly?
You might want to look up the definition before you reply this time.
So the BBC is your typical government program (or monopoly). Produces cheap results at exorbitantly high cost. I am not shocked.
By what definition of some other word you are mistaking for monopoly, is the BBC a monopoly?
And as is repeated again and again, the BBC is not a government run broadcaster, it's a publicly funded broadcaster that the government has no direct control over.
I went from Vista to Win7 RC1 and didn't have any problems. Every time I see a comment like this, I think to myself "Why don't I ever have these problems?" Well?
Possibly for the same reason I can install Linux and not have to keep a terminal window open for every little thing, or constantly tweak it. We are not drama queens.
Yes. Why do the iPhone and netbook people not get this. Every time an ebook story comes out I have to hear the same ill advice about how sitting in a hammock with an LCD screen that I can't read outside is a better alternative.
Several reasons.
A) They do not read anything other than textbooks, manuals and graphic novels. So the idea of sequentially reading a book with no pictures is an alien concept. B) They have never actually used an e-ink screen for more than a few pages at best. So go on the usual "After trying it in some shop for a few minutes, I didn't like it" excuse. C) They are personally offended that a device is not aimed at them, and are trying desperately to convince everyone that they don't actually want one anyway... D) It isn't made by Apple. E) It isn't their device, and as everybody knows, there can be only one.
And no lobbyist has ever broken that rule, or circumvented it?/innocent
There is a big difference between subverting/bending a rule, and deliberate open bribery. THE former can be dismissed as an ethical error, the latter is not a good idea, as if discovered, can come back and bite those involved in the arse.
Depends on your tastes. Lots of PD books. Quite a few scifi and fantasy. Outside Amazon and Sony book stores, there are quote a few ePub and.mobi DRM free books. Check out Mobileread.com for links to various places that do special offers from time to time.
If you install Calibre, it will convert PDF to which every format your reader supports. Works cross platform, and it is very good. PDF is not so hot on most, if not all e-book readers. ePub and Mobi are far far better.
Slashdot Mirror
ChromeOS requires a google ID to log in. Imagine that, if that isn't vendor lock in I don't know what is.
Absolutely correct. You don't know what vendor lockin is.
Troll? Who the F modded me as troll? From the FAQ:
At a guess, someone who couldn't find the self righteous twat moderation. So troll it is.
How exactly is some nobody Canadian actress (can you spell redundancy?) going to save Chicago?
24/7 Palm Pre adverts?
Sounds like I need to upgrade to Windows 7 for some real security...
Of the blanket type.. With pink bunny rabbits.
Thou shalt not brute-force cooking. REAL chefs will have no interest in your stupid book.
Never heard of Heston Blumenthal then...
I have that checkbox, they must have a very low definition of "contributed". Trolls in the comments seems to make the cut.
Same here for the last few weeks at least. It remains unticked.
And for the record, I turn adblock off on forums and sites that show some restraint with ads. But lets be honest.. Some do tend to abuse the concept of "ad supported" to the extent that the ads are article supported.
Wouldnt fedora be precisely the WRONG distro to use as a server on a network, given that it is a bleeding edge distro?
Well spotted. Nobody in their right mind is going to use a bleeding edge distro for this. There are exceptions though.. I think Nasa and a few others do use it, but they have the in house expertise to backport and maintain anything they like, which is not the norm by any stretch. I even saw the Fedora logo on the desktop of a movie CGI company in a video clip recently though, so YMMV.
Do you imagine that the problem of young people being reckless is one that can be reduced by banning caffeinated alcoholic drinks?
No.. Do you imagine it is supposed to?
Sorry.. I don't do pedantic or false dichotomy bullshit. Too much effort to argue around imaginary points.
Are you saying that people have no idea that they're imbibing concoctions that contain alcohol and caffeine, and that they further have no idea of the effects of those chemicals? That knowledge is the whole reason the stuff sells.
No. People buying these drinks know they have "an effect" Usually an enjoyable one at first. They do not necessarily think about that effect when pouring it down their neck. Or what happens to them when they drink a large number of these drinks.
People in their late teens/early 20s do not have a great reputation for considerd actions when in a group, vying for each other to show how much more they can drink than their friends. Perhaps it's a cultural thing, but I doubt there is that much difference between young Americans and young English adults. And drinking too many alcoholic energy drinks is more of a group activity than something you do to unwind after a hard day.
If you imagine everybody is rational and looks at consequences carefully before engaging in such activities, you really need to get out more.
Potential disaster or not, as long as people are making an informed and deliberate choice I fail to see the need for government action.
Possibly because the informed part is often missing.
millions? really?
do you have a source?
It's Linux, Of course we do..
Getting more serious.. Why do you even question that there are millions of users. Ubuntu alone has stated counting 7-8 million regular users of the repositories, and it's default desktop is Gnome. And as Gnome is one of the big two, if not the most common desktop supplied with a distro, tens of millions is not difficult to justify as a probable user count. And even if you take the most pessimistic figures guessed at by the various web trackers, desktop Linux's 1% is 1% of a billion computer users. Do the math.
The reason it's like that is because developers are too lazy to test with a regular user account.
And the reason they are like that is because Windows has up to the last couple of versions, defaulted to having the install run as root.
About time it changed, but it will take years for the platform to stabilise.
Really, if the version numbers are going to be this meaningless for tracking significant changes they should at least name them or come up with some other system. Something that let's people get interested and involved in the project and excited about the new release.
Since when have version numbers been consistently meaningful across more than one project/program? Just do like everybody else and see a new version number as an indicator that there is something different from the last version. Version numbers ARE meaningless.
Who the fuck wants either MythTV or Windows Media Center? What the hell is wrong with just opening your video files in a media player? Why the fuck would anyone want to make their computer work like a TV? What is a media center anyway?
You would be surprised how good it is. The ability to play all media on a TV set, or in advanced installs, to play all media on any TV set with a myth box connected is something that you can only appreciate fully once you live with it for a while. It's going to be one of my next projects. My current HTPC is only a fairly ordinary desktop PC connected to my TV set, but I can watch and record TV and radio, watch Youtube videos and other streamed content on my TV instead of on my computer, upscale DVDs, Watch all my Miro downloaded content as and when I like, and it gives much greater flexibility than anything on the market. My current one is Windows based, so I have to use a bunch of different apps to do everything, but I'm looking at using one of the Myth distros for my next build. One remote to rule them all.
FatELF could quite easily have been some attempt to make everyone's Linux take twice as long to download and use twice as much disk space. Or perhaps the person who developed it just can't accept that it's totally useless. Maybe there is no giant conspiracy to ruin Linux by stuffing it full of useless crap, actually people are just morons.
Here I agree. I haven't gone into it that much, but on the surface at least, it seems an over think to a problem that is not that much of a problem, and a developer that got upset because everybody didn't think his idea was as brilliant as he did.
What few here seem to appreciate, is that the kernel devs must get hundreds of "improvements" sent to them every day. A whole new revolutionary software installation system is just another installer. Kind of like stand up comedians getting jokes from cab drivers.
But we're discussing Linux here, not some proprietary OS. If you want foo, you 'aptitude install foo' and it just works. If it doesn't you build it yourself and it just works. ...and linux weenies wonder why users don't drop Windows and flock to Linux in droves.
True.. But we wonder more often why Windows weenies insist on cornering us and telling us loudly and aggressively that they are not going to use our OS, even when we didn't ask them to, while demanding we fix their computers. How come users of the biggest market share OS are so insecure?
The corollary to that rule is that many applications won't run because they're poorly architected and require administrative rights to run. Oh, sure, you can finagle around with permissions and get many of them to run, but is it really worth the time to work around broken software? (running Windows which itself is broken notwithstanding)
If it stops Doris in accounts getting the whole bloody network infected with conflicker because she used her kid's USB drive to bring her holiday snaps into work.. YES!!! Check out the clean up costs for a bad infection some time. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/04/ealing_council_mystery_malware/ Is the inconvenience worth £500,000? Are USB drives now banned on pain of instant dismissal from the council networks? Somehow I doubt it.
Definitely missed their mark. Seriously, look at the "mentions" - Steve Ballmer. Would really need to see the way they worded the survey to see how that name made the list.
Are you kidding?? Steve is a fantastic Linux asset. The 235 patents story must have made way more column inches in the IT media that the release of a new kernel or the launch of compiz ever could. Even publications that never carry open source stories would have reported on this. The Linux shopping spree and the subsequent full stop and panicked withdrawal alone I'm sure did more to publicise Linux and GPL3 than a bunch of full page adverts. It's kind of the same as when the music and movie industries seed the media with stories about file sharing, and practically advertise the torrent apps and p2p systems.
Then how come it's the UK government that throws me in jail, if I refuse to pay the TV fee? You are pointing-out a differences that, in reality, make no difference whatsoever. The BBC is akin to Obama's "public option" healthcare. If it's optional, why is the government fining me $1000/year starting in 2011 (or else I'll be jailed).
No..
You get fined for using a TV without a license. You are not legally compelled to have a TV set. And if you have no set, you need no license.
And unless there was an extradition agreement with American and the UK I didn't know about, you are not going to get imprisoned for not having a UK TV license.
This is just like 1984 - redefining words in hopes people will be fooled.
Agreed. so stop redefining "Monopoly" and "Tax", and it will stop being like 1984.
The BBC is "independent" but still uses government-enforced fees.
Yep. Independent means that the government do not get to tell the BBC which issues it covers in the news programs, or stop it broadcasting anything embarrassing to the government with any more power than an ordinary citizen. If the government wants to stop a story in anything but very extraordinary circumstances, they have to go through the courts like anybody else.
The "option" is not optional since you'll be fined if you don't take it.
Wrong.
I can decide to not have a TV set, and not have a license. I have taken this route in the past. And I have never seen the inside of a prison. I can get a video display device with no ability to receive broadcast TV signals, and hook it up to a device that outputs pre recorded video signals, and I am exempt from any legislation to extract a license fee.
IT IS NOT COMPULSORY TO HAVE A TV.
THEREFORE, IT IS NOT COMPULSORY TO HAVE A TV LICENSE.
No TV no license. No problem.
I don't have a ham radio license, but I don't have a ham radio either.
I don't have a driving license, but as I don't own or operate a car, no problem.
I don't have a firearms license, but then I don't have a gun either.
And I am still at large in the community.. See how it works?
When they ask for your annual TV license fee (tax) can you say "no"?
Yes.
Interesting definition of monopoly though.. A company who expects to be paid for products or services rendered.. Sorry.. Not a definition of a monopoly. Try again.
Then they hold a monopoly over your wallet. Even if you never, ever watch BBC, they still get paid.
Nope. You are perfectly entitled to have no TV set, and have no license. It is also perfectly legal to have a monitor without a TV tuner, and have a DVD player attached, which is exempt. I had no TV and no license for several years in my 20s, and nobody broke down the door to demand payment. And unlike the situation with satellite of cable, if you have a TV set, you can pick up the broadcast signal with no way of it being stopped, so you still have the ability to use a BBC channel, and in reality, the number of people who do not watch BBC broadcasting is so small, it may as well be non existent. Devil's advocate arguments do not apply.
I hate sports, so can I get money back from any newspaper I buy for the sports pages I'm not going to read? How about if I return the unread parts of the paper for a refund?
out We have the same situation with U.S. government schools, where even if I never went there, and never had any kids that went there (home or private-schooled), the local Uncle Sam school still has a monopoly over my wallet ($3500 each year).
No.. We have the same situation everywhere. Taxes are gathered to pay for the running of the country, and services that would be unprofitable, but are still essential. Everybody pays for the common good. That includes education, law enforcement, infrastructure production and maintenance, etc. Don't like it, buy your own island, and live on it alone for ever more. You can't avoid the education payment by not having kids, but you can avoid the TV license by not having a TV. So not the same thing.
Monopoly also does not mean "Paying for stuff I don't want to pay for". Try again.
I bet Microsoft and Comcast would kill for such a sweet deal.
I wouldn't. They have difficulty competing in anything approaching a level playing field as it is. And if their profit margins were heavily capped, they would not be the companies they are today. If they were controlled to the extent that the BBC is, they would not be happy at all. They do have some market distorting advantages though.. Are you suggesting that these be removed?
So Microsoft would have to spin off Office into a separate company that was independently run, and independently controlled, which means offering Office to OSX and Linux users too. Not being able to have incompatible file formats or special protocols etc.. Transparent non preferential pricing to OEMS would also sting a bit. And things like paying for advertising with OEMs would also be a bit tricky.
And Comcast would have to provide competition encouraging services like internet access at cost to all competitors for resale under their own branding, with no ability to degrade, cap, or modify it in any way. I'm sure they are just begging for that..
In bad times, the BBC is pretty much guaranteed money. So yes, it is an advantage there. But in good times, privately run broadcasting companies make way more money from advertising, so they can pay for better imported TV series, Big budget popular movies, Highly profitable sporting events, and charge more for this programming when they can pretty much guarantee the viewing figures. But many don't make much new programming themselves. The BBC does. The BBC is also bound to provide a more varied schedule than other channels.
The BBC is a service. As such, it is obliged to offer programming that is not profitable. So public information, party political broadcasts etc..
(No you don't Windows of Cable TV, but yes you still have to pay us $100 each year.)
Do yo want to rephrase that into something that actually makes sense?
So I ask again, how exactly is the BBC a monopoly?
You might want to look up the definition before you reply this time.
So the BBC is your typical government program (or monopoly). Produces cheap results at exorbitantly high cost. I am not shocked.
By what definition of some other word you are mistaking for monopoly, is the BBC a monopoly?
And as is repeated again and again, the BBC is not a government run broadcaster, it's a publicly funded broadcaster that the government has no direct control over.
What the Hell is a Koala doing in China?
Goth Koalas are indistinguishable from Pandas.
I went from Vista to Win7 RC1 and didn't have any problems. Every time I see a comment like this, I think to myself "Why don't I ever have these problems?" Well?
Possibly for the same reason I can install Linux and not have to keep a terminal window open for every little thing, or constantly tweak it. We are not drama queens.
Yes. Why do the iPhone and netbook people not get this. Every time an ebook story comes out I have to hear the same ill advice about how sitting in a hammock with an LCD screen that I can't read outside is a better alternative.
Several reasons.
A) They do not read anything other than textbooks, manuals and graphic novels. So the idea of sequentially reading a book with no pictures is an alien concept.
B) They have never actually used an e-ink screen for more than a few pages at best. So go on the usual "After trying it in some shop for a few minutes, I didn't like it" excuse.
C) They are personally offended that a device is not aimed at them, and are trying desperately to convince everyone that they don't actually want one anyway...
D) It isn't made by Apple.
E) It isn't their device, and as everybody knows, there can be only one.
And no lobbyist has ever broken that rule, or circumvented it? /innocent
There is a big difference between subverting/bending a rule, and deliberate open bribery. THE former can be dismissed as an ethical error, the latter is not a good idea, as if discovered, can come back and bite those involved in the arse.
Depends on your tastes. Lots of PD books. Quite a few scifi and fantasy. Outside Amazon and Sony book stores, there are quote a few ePub and .mobi DRM free books. Check out Mobileread.com for links to various places that do special offers from time to time.
If you install Calibre, it will convert PDF to which every format your reader supports. Works cross platform, and it is very good. PDF is not so hot on most, if not all e-book readers. ePub and Mobi are far far better.