There is no damn monopoly. There's OSX, there's Linux, DELL and Lenovo offer it preinstalled even. And you can buy Mac machine with OSX.
Don't be naive. The whole monopoly crap is back in the mid nineties. Microsoft no longer has monopoly. There are plenty of good choices around. And exactly because of this, as I told you, many people in US I know converted to Mac this year.
I'm talking about pressing issues here, that we feel not abstractly and indirectly, but quite painfully directly: Vista is crap, and we want the ability to order our machines with XP. Why, if there is no monopoly, are you finding it difficult to get the specific OS you want from a third party vendor? Surely it is in the best interest of the vendor to sell you what you want instead of forcing you to fight to get a computer from them with the OS of choice.
It can't do Dell any good to have to disappoint or aggravate customers like this. After all.. Microsoft are still selling XP, customers still want XP, so why is it so hard to get it instead of Vista? They have more work making sure that their hardware has all the drivers and the power required to run Vista, not to mention adding further support systems for Vista. Which is an expense they have to bear that wouldn't exist if they chose to stick with XP. Surely Dell could get their OS from elsewhere and Microsoft would be faced with giving the customer the product they want or turning away business.
Unless Microsoft are putting pressure on their customers to push Vista and making it increasingly difficult to buy XP.. and have the power to alter their prices on an individual basis and put even a large company like Dell out of business. But Dell would just go to a different supplier then wouldn't they.. Its not as if Microsoft have a monopoly any more.
Someone, please, tell me that PC World is not that stupid. Tell me that web page belongs to someone other than the AC that submitted the original story and was latter identified only as "Tikka". It violates their own store policy. Their PR people told The Register they would take care of it. Tell me the video was taken days ago. I'd really rather hear anything other than some self important moron is making life difficult for a Linux user, against store policy, common decency and half the internet's outrage. No?
Poor Mr. Tank. Nope. PC World are that bad. After years of experience with the various Dixons group stores, including working for one of the chains for a few years, I washed my hands of them.
Absolutely. The chances that I will buy an iPod have just dropped to precisely zero. I admit it wasn't terribly high to start with... the iPod was only in the running because Apple seem to be the only people making devices with 60 GB drives.:( Except Archos. Never used them myself, but I have heard a few good accounts. Works with Linux too apparently. Although I imagine the battery life would be compromised with a 160 gig hard drive and a big LCD screen.
Oh how I wish that microsoft would integrate this into windows. I doubt even the most pointy headed idiot there would be stupid enough. Not even if Ballmer cracked his skull with a chair and replaced the brain with sweat. But one can dream! You mean.. Would a Windows user object to carefully selected businesses offering relevant services and/or products based on the activities carried out on the computer..
I think Microsoft is getting really close to the threshold both at personal and corporate level where consumers will simply refuse their products, because of the continuous, repeated bad taste Windows leaves behind. Or just as bad from Microsoft's point of view.. People start to not be afraid of low flying chairs..
A five year old computer isn't exactly new. There are no doubt a few who see your PC as the height of extravagance, and wonder what you are doing that needs more than a 486 with 4 meg of memory.. As to planned obsolescence, there are things that many do now that they didn't when your computer was a current specification. Linux can either deal with the world moving on or shrink into insignificance.
Like lots of the stuff in Linux, Compiz, Beryl and now Compiz-Fusion are options. Not requirements.
Isn't one of the selling points of Linux that it is an OS that allows you to customise it to your heart's content? So you can have a bare CLI, or any of a number of desktops, and your choice of apps and services running or not.
All the more reason to push the issue. If they can corrupt a standard like the ones used for networking, then their software is faulty and should be recalled or patched.
I don't think so. When Dell started out with this current Linux experiment, there were a few hiccups that needed sorting out. Better to have this sorted with techie users than the knuckle dragging Joe Subnormal.
I think they are going about it the right way. Get used to offering a choice of OSs on a small range, and gradually build up the range and the publicity. Not much use getting thousands of orders if 70% come back within a few weeks because some twit didn't realise that they couldn't run the latest Windows games.
Linux seems to get easier to use with each update, so in a year or two, it will be that much better and hopefully a few more hardware makers will jump on board too, making things even easier for new users to get to grips with.
I used to laugh at people who kept saying Linux for desktop is coming, and I'm not that big of a fan of the Linux desktop as well (I'm a fan of the Linux servers).
But what I kept saying is they need vendor support. No support, no lunch.
Now HP and Dell, the hardware vendors, offer desktop support. Those are big players, we know the smaller players will follow though quickly.
Something's definitely going on, I remember the same excitement as Firefox was making its first steps eating at IE's market share. Looks to me like they are going about it the right way too. And Linux distros getting easier hasn't hurt either.
Idiot/PR exercise doomed to failure way:- Launch with maximum publicity. Advertise the Linux boxes as ideal budget systems etc. Get as many new users after a cheap system, but with little or no computer knowledge.
Result.. Supply lines not ready for demand, support network not up to speed, and too many new users get their first experience of Linux the bad way. The whole thing can be dismissed as a bad idea, and more trouble than its worth.
Sensible considered cautious way:- Start small, offer a few lines in one geographical market at a time. Get the supply and support glitches that are inevitable with a new line sorted out while selling to low support needs customers. Gradually expand the lines and markets. Ramp up advertising as time goes on and the distro of choice is ready for a particular market.
Result.. Small but growing group of new customers that have found out about the Linux offerings and are buying as much to support the effort as they are to get a new computer. Later on it can be expanded and more lines can be offered with a Linux option as the software matures in a new market.
I would love to see Sketchup ported over. It sure don't run on Wine, least as far as I have tried. My fingers are crossed. Thats something I would be happy to see too. It almost does. Painfully close every time I try it. Keep hoping:-)
So you're saying that forcing yourself into a particular niche (in this case, AT&T subscribers) is a smart way to increase profits? How is that any good compared to striking a similar deal with multiple networks? The only side I can imagine pushing this deal would be AT&T, in an attempt to pull people away from the competitors.
Also, so far as cost goes, I'd say $600-700, (minus the usual glossy plastic fee, of course) after experience with similar phones (sans contract). Still high, but not the $1,000 you estimated. Exclusivity is expensive. If one phone provider is the only one to offer this particular desirable handset, then Apple can expect more money, which offsets the manufacturing costs and they can be more profitable while offering the phone for less. Apple marketing and product loyalty is carefully cultivated to generate sales. The phone provider will sell a lot of these, and the profits from people with high disposable incomes and a desire to demonstrate their new toy will generate even more money.
The difference is that people use Linux by choice, and the people making that choice know that they're sacrificing compatibility.
People using Vista are very likely to just have bought a new computer since the beginning of the year, and have no idea why things don't work with it. Wouldn't that mean that Microsoft, being such a big company with lots and lots of expert developers should have tested their OS to make sure it was compatible with a very well documented and broadly used standard?
If IE8 changes the way that JPG files are displayed, should everyone who uses a JPG file on their website change to the new Microsoft imposed version?
Lower costs for Linux support?? You must be joking.
Your calls with consist of the following:
15% Actual Support issues
As opposed to the wonderful experinece of Windows tech support? All those incredbly skilled operators who can diagnose a stick of bad RAM by the caller saying the words "my computer is acting funny" with 100% accuracy?
More hardware related stuff perhaps. In which case "I'm sorry caller, I'm afraid we don't support that hardware" is adequate. "If you try the forum at this URL, they may be able to advise you better than any tech support line will".
The most crucial thing is to have an internet connection up and running. I know from my first attempts with Linux and winmodems years ago, there was no way I could get the things to work, but since I now use broadband and an Ethernet modem, connecting to the net is automatically handled by the OS and hardware with no user intervention. If the hardware in question is something that didn't come with the computer, then they only have to point the user to the forum, or in the case of the way Dell are handling this issue, Canonical are taking the job over for OS related problems. Other OEMs offering Linux may vary, such as Lenovo offering their own in house support. Linux doesn't have zero support issues, but neither does Windows. And the same method of support (please install the rescue disk) will work just as well.
60% Stupid Questions like "How do I install winzip" that just take up time and call volume.
Easy. Explain that Linux is not Windows and the two do not use the same software. Car manufacturers still make cars that use more than one incompatible fuel type, so why should computers be any different, and its not as expensive a mistake as driving away in a petrol car with a tank of diesel. The caller may be annoyed, but there isn't much they can complain about. Windows tech support is just as likely to have daft questions asked a lot of the time. I'd bet that if a supported computer has a floppy drive, that they get at least one call every day asking why the computer refuses to start up when they have left a non bootable floppy in the drive, or someone forgets to turn the monitor on, and thinks their computer is broken.
The OEM already factors in the costs of tech support, and it is something you have paid for even if you never use it. And for the OEMs it works out cheaper to have a hardware problem dismissed as a bad configuration or something that the user is trying to do that is impossible instead of arranging to have the box picked up and tested for every minor glitch. A caller saying that their computer will not play movies can mean A) they don't have the software installed to play DVDs, B) they are trying to play a DVD in a CD drive, C) they are trying to play an HD disk in a CD or DVD drive, or D) The drive is faulty. Only "D" requires a hardware replacement, but without tech support lines, all four would require the base unit to be returned for repair, or for a tech support person to be called out.
25% Non-Supported questions from geeks like "I compiled the newest dev kernel and now it crashes when I press the Q key, what's up with that?"
You mean the geeks that would consider it shameful to even read the manual, and never bother with some tech support person who they know full well is only reading from a script? They go to the forums like everyone else. Tech support doesn't even come into it unless they have diagnosed the problem to be a hardware fault and want to get an RMA. If they completely muck up the system, they will have enough ability to reinstall the OS from scratch. Its a non issue.
And you better believe you need GOOD answers for all three types of questions if you want to keep customers happy (especially if they're new to linux and don't understand WHY their retarded when it comes to computers).
See above. Windows based computers have more than their share of idiot users, and very few non idiots call tech
Same here (so far at least) in the UK. Listening to it right now. Although I haven't logged in for a while, so they may be updating their lists of non American users.
Yeah, because these Slashdot users leave these opinions on these forums, they don't take them along to their workplaces or pass them along to friends and family when asked (or often when not asked as it sounds by many of the comments I've read in the past). It doesn't matter if it's a corporation or individuals en masse, FUD is FUD is FUD, period. I think you over estimate the power of slashdot.
Please tell me you were being sarcastic there. I have read enough unsubatantiated "facts" and vague assertions about Windows on Slashdot alone to make your head spin. For instace, how about all the recent bullshit about DRM and HD playback on Vista, all perpeturaed by some paper written by a guy who states that he has never even used Vista and the readers should check the facts for him? I could go on but one need only to read Slashdot on a semi-frequent basis to see all the BS written about Windows and Microsoft. And unless slashdot releases a Linux distro, your point is irrelevant. If you went to a Windows board or read the Windows fanboy posts, then the same applies. the two factions cancel each other out. Both sides have unrealistic cheerleaders. the Linux fanboys that expect corporate customers to use WINE to run their Windows apps, and the Windows fanboys who challenge every possible criticism about vista with " have you tried Vista yet". One is as bad as the other.
However, Red Hat, Canonical and others have not put up a site claiming the advantages of Linux over Windows using vague or stretched information that only a PR agency could call fact. And they would have to have a pretty big retainer to commit themselves that far. Microsoft (please note the lack of the traditional "$", so I can't be a zealot for either side) has replaced one misleading web site with another.
Neither OS can be held responsible for the actions or words of it's respective users, but they are responsible for their own actions. Didn't some hardware manufacturer get into trouble over the same practice years ago?
Exactly. This should be a scandal in the serious papers and a shock horror exposé in the tabloids. However the advertisers and owners wouldn't like the truth being told on this. True to an extent I think. Certainly here in the UK, where the most read paper is owned by news international, who own Sky and 20th century Fox. But more than that. People seem to have an aversion to anything technical. I've lost count of the people who seem quite proud to announce that they "know nothing about computers" as they drop their virus ridden PC off to be disinfected. Stories about some z list celeb or the horror of street violence over reactions are way better stories. And in reality, a news paper is not intended to inform, but to sell copies of the paper. So an informative story is just wasted space.
Re:This is a FAILURE of the OPEN SOURCE Community
on
Ubuntu Servers Hacked
·
· Score: 1
why hasn't the community (that means you) spent enough time looking over the code and fixing all those bugs? As the servers were not updated, how exactly would that have saved them? A patch only works if it is applied to the computer in question.
A past EOL OS, ineffective settings, and less than skilled admins. It couldn't get much worse no matter what system was being used. This is no more Ubuntu's fault than it would be Microsoft's fault if a Windows user gets hacked while surfing using an unpatched computer with the C:\ set as shared and no firewall.
The exact same thing has more likely than not happened to countless businesses all over the world when they got someone who knew just enough to be dangerous to set up their network. I know of one small business that has their office computers networked over wireless,and the guy who set it up didn't have a clue about security, so I doubt the connection is that secure.
I've seen quite a few anti DRM articles over the years, and a fair few explaining what DRM is. The problem is that these are in publications that are aimed at more technical people who already know this.
Where the information really needs to go to is the people who are innocently buying that new HDTV set with little or no research, and is not wondering if the HDMA socket will work with this generation of HD sources and the next.
What's the opposite of FUD? -- SCO doesn't matter. The stupid as court let them drag their feet before determining what we determined in ten minutes... they were so totally full of crap that it wasn't even amusing. Except that courts are sometimes exceptionally stupid. Especially when it comes to technological cases. So at some point, it could perhaps have gone either way, or at least appeared to from a biased column or an uninformed article in a business journal.
I'd agree that for anybody who actually looked into the case, there would have been less perception of risk, but how many non technical suits would do so. Far better in their mindset to go for a system that didn't have any potential risks associated.
True enough, but there is nothing stopping any software project getting over developed. At least there is a chance of an open source one getting pulled back down to earth.
I can see conflict as the number of interested developers grows. You might "over develop" a lightweight simple tool into something bloated. But as the source is available, wouldn't it be possible for someone to make a more lightweight version of the bloated one? If the lightweight version was really more desirable, then that would be the one that gets used more, and the original either falls into disuse, or it slims down.
Someone will read the small print if they are buying something as expensive as a house, taking out a loan, or buying insurance. They do not always realise that they are going to be held to so many conditions when they buy a computer. And an unenforced condition can become an enforced one at any time. After all, they bought the thing, so they own it...right?? Ask the average off the shelf computer buyer if they know that they can be forced to buy a new copy of Windows if they change too much hardware, and many will not even know that they can change the hardware in the first place.
People are ignorant sheep. They don't think before they buy, and they don't have any idea of the pitfalls and drawbacks of supporting consumer hostile technologies like DRM.
If consumers were actually informed enough to make rational choices, the media companies would never have been able to pull off DRM in the first place. Nobody would buy a media product that reduces it's usefulness.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be naive. The whole monopoly crap is back in the mid nineties. Microsoft no longer has monopoly. There are plenty of good choices around. And exactly because of this, as I told you, many people in US I know converted to Mac this year.
I'm talking about pressing issues here, that we feel not abstractly and indirectly, but quite painfully directly: Vista is crap, and we want the ability to order our machines with XP. Why, if there is no monopoly, are you finding it difficult to get the specific OS you want from a third party vendor? Surely it is in the best interest of the vendor to sell you what you want instead of forcing you to fight to get a computer from them with the OS of choice.
It can't do Dell any good to have to disappoint or aggravate customers like this. After all.. Microsoft are still selling XP, customers still want XP, so why is it so hard to get it instead of Vista?
They have more work making sure that their hardware has all the drivers and the power required to run Vista, not to mention adding further support systems for Vista. Which is an expense they have to bear that wouldn't exist if they chose to stick with XP. Surely Dell could get their OS from elsewhere and Microsoft would be faced with giving the customer the product they want or turning away business.
Unless Microsoft are putting pressure on their customers to push Vista and making it increasingly difficult to buy XP.. and have the power to alter their prices on an individual basis and put even a large company like Dell out of business. But Dell would just go to a different supplier then wouldn't they.. Its not as if Microsoft have a monopoly any more.
Depends on the remark.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ypfy9b
UK site, but I think they are available worldwide.
A five year old computer isn't exactly new. There are no doubt a few who see your PC as the height of extravagance, and wonder what you are doing that needs more than a 486 with 4 meg of memory.. As to planned obsolescence, there are things that many do now that they didn't when your computer was a current specification. Linux can either deal with the world moving on or shrink into insignificance. Like lots of the stuff in Linux, Compiz, Beryl and now Compiz-Fusion are options. Not requirements. Isn't one of the selling points of Linux that it is an OS that allows you to customise it to your heart's content? So you can have a bare CLI, or any of a number of desktops, and your choice of apps and services running or not.
All the more reason to push the issue. If they can corrupt a standard like the ones used for networking, then their software is faulty and should be recalled or patched.
I don't think so. When Dell started out with this current Linux experiment, there were a few hiccups that needed sorting out. Better to have this sorted with techie users than the knuckle dragging Joe Subnormal.
I think they are going about it the right way. Get used to offering a choice of OSs on a small range, and gradually build up the range and the publicity. Not much use getting thousands of orders if 70% come back within a few weeks because some twit didn't realise that they couldn't run the latest Windows games.
Linux seems to get easier to use with each update, so in a year or two, it will be that much better and hopefully a few more hardware makers will jump on board too, making things even easier for new users to get to grips with.
Result.. Supply lines not ready for demand, support network not up to speed, and too many new users get their first experience of Linux the bad way. The whole thing can be dismissed as a bad idea, and more trouble than its worth. Sensible considered cautious way:- Start small, offer a few lines in one geographical market at a time. Get the supply and support glitches that are inevitable with a new line sorted out while selling to low support needs customers. Gradually expand the lines and markets. Ramp up advertising as time goes on and the distro of choice is ready for a particular market.
Result.. Small but growing group of new customers that have found out about the Linux offerings and are buying as much to support the effort as they are to get a new computer. Later on it can be expanded and more lines can be offered with a Linux option as the software matures in a new market.
People using Vista are very likely to just have bought a new computer since the beginning of the year, and have no idea why things don't work with it. Wouldn't that mean that Microsoft, being such a big company with lots and lots of expert developers should have tested their OS to make sure it was compatible with a very well documented and broadly used standard?
If IE8 changes the way that JPG files are displayed, should everyone who uses a JPG file on their website change to the new Microsoft imposed version?
Lower costs for Linux support?? You must be joking. Your calls with consist of the following: 15% Actual Support issues
As opposed to the wonderful experinece of Windows tech support? All those incredbly skilled operators who can diagnose a stick of bad RAM by the caller saying the words "my computer is acting funny" with 100% accuracy?
More hardware related stuff perhaps. In which case "I'm sorry caller, I'm afraid we don't support that hardware" is adequate. "If you try the forum at this URL, they may be able to advise you better than any tech support line will".
The most crucial thing is to have an internet connection up and running. I know from my first attempts with Linux and winmodems years ago, there was no way I could get the things to work, but since I now use broadband and an Ethernet modem, connecting to the net is automatically handled by the OS and hardware with no user intervention. If the hardware in question is something that didn't come with the computer, then they only have to point the user to the forum, or in the case of the way Dell are handling this issue, Canonical are taking the job over for OS related problems. Other OEMs offering Linux may vary, such as Lenovo offering their own in house support. Linux doesn't have zero support issues, but neither does Windows. And the same method of support (please install the rescue disk) will work just as well.
60% Stupid Questions like "How do I install winzip" that just take up time and call volume.
Easy. Explain that Linux is not Windows and the two do not use the same software. Car manufacturers still make cars that use more than one incompatible fuel type, so why should computers be any different, and its not as expensive a mistake as driving away in a petrol car with a tank of diesel. The caller may be annoyed, but there isn't much they can complain about. Windows tech support is just as likely to have daft questions asked a lot of the time. I'd bet that if a supported computer has a floppy drive, that they get at least one call every day asking why the computer refuses to start up when they have left a non bootable floppy in the drive, or someone forgets to turn the monitor on, and thinks their computer is broken.
The OEM already factors in the costs of tech support, and it is something you have paid for even if you never use it. And for the OEMs it works out cheaper to have a hardware problem dismissed as a bad configuration or something that the user is trying to do that is impossible instead of arranging to have the box picked up and tested for every minor glitch. A caller saying that their computer will not play movies can mean A) they don't have the software installed to play DVDs, B) they are trying to play a DVD in a CD drive, C) they are trying to play an HD disk in a CD or DVD drive, or D) The drive is faulty. Only "D" requires a hardware replacement, but without tech support lines, all four would require the base unit to be returned for repair, or for a tech support person to be called out.
25% Non-Supported questions from geeks like "I compiled the newest dev kernel and now it crashes when I press the Q key, what's up with that?"
You mean the geeks that would consider it shameful to even read the manual, and never bother with some tech support person who they know full well is only reading from a script? They go to the forums like everyone else. Tech support doesn't even come into it unless they have diagnosed the problem to be a hardware fault and want to get an RMA. If they completely muck up the system, they will have enough ability to reinstall the OS from scratch. Its a non issue.
And you better believe you need GOOD answers for all three types of questions if you want to keep customers happy (especially if they're new to linux and don't understand WHY their retarded when it comes to computers).
See above. Windows based computers have more than their share of idiot users, and very few non idiots call tech
Same here (so far at least) in the UK. Listening to it right now. Although I haven't logged in for a while, so they may be updating their lists of non American users.
However, Red Hat, Canonical and others have not put up a site claiming the advantages of Linux over Windows using vague or stretched information that only a PR agency could call fact. And they would have to have a pretty big retainer to commit themselves that far. Microsoft (please note the lack of the traditional "$", so I can't be a zealot for either side) has replaced one misleading web site with another.
Neither OS can be held responsible for the actions or words of it's respective users, but they are responsible for their own actions. Didn't some hardware manufacturer get into trouble over the same practice years ago?
They will be different annoyances though.
A past EOL OS, ineffective settings, and less than skilled admins. It couldn't get much worse no matter what system was being used. This is no more Ubuntu's fault than it would be Microsoft's fault if a Windows user gets hacked while surfing using an unpatched computer with the C:\ set as shared and no firewall.
The exact same thing has more likely than not happened to countless businesses all over the world when they got someone who knew just enough to be dangerous to set up their network. I know of one small business that has their office computers networked over wireless,and the guy who set it up didn't have a clue about security, so I doubt the connection is that secure.
I've seen quite a few anti DRM articles over the years, and a fair few explaining what DRM is. The problem is that these are in publications that are aimed at more technical people who already know this.
Where the information really needs to go to is the people who are innocently buying that new HDTV set with little or no research, and is not wondering if the HDMA socket will work with this generation of HD sources and the next.
I'd agree that for anybody who actually looked into the case, there would have been less perception of risk, but how many non technical suits would do so. Far better in their mindset to go for a system that didn't have any potential risks associated.
True enough, but there is nothing stopping any software project getting over developed. At least there is a chance of an open source one getting pulled back down to earth.
Someone will read the small print if they are buying something as expensive as a house, taking out a loan, or buying insurance. They do not always realise that they are going to be held to so many conditions when they buy a computer. And an unenforced condition can become an enforced one at any time. After all, they bought the thing, so they own it...right?? Ask the average off the shelf computer buyer if they know that they can be forced to buy a new copy of Windows if they change too much hardware, and many will not even know that they can change the hardware in the first place.
People are ignorant sheep. They don't think before they buy, and they don't have any idea of the pitfalls and drawbacks of supporting consumer hostile technologies like DRM.
If consumers were actually informed enough to make rational choices, the media companies would never have been able to pull off DRM in the first place. Nobody would buy a media product that reduces it's usefulness.