Companies don't try to offer every possible product any consumer might want. That tends to dilute their focus. Instead they tend to offer those products likely to have a significant impact on their bottom line and then focus development, marketing, and support towards those products.
In order for AT&T to offer that service to Nook owners the market has to be large enough to be worth their time. They also have to consider such issues as to whether they already have a product that they have an investment in that currently meets all or most of that market, whether the new product would bring new customers or just cannibalize existing customers, and whether their business partners are interested in pursuing such products.
The whole process is complicated and the fact that one or more customers exist for a given product is not in and of itself justification to sell a product.
I think the point is, there ARE other products that provide general computer functionality with a cellular connection.
The Nook is an eBook reader and that is all is aspires to be. That is it's business model. There is room in this world for specialized devices (they don't ALL have to all be general purpose) and I certainly think companies should have the option of creating special business arrangements (such as a constant cellular connection supported by book purchases) to support those devices.
Of course AT&T will lock this down. That is the right think to do so that those people who DO want a device such as this is, will be able to get it.
"Most devices considered smartphones today use an identifiable operating system"
"One common feature to the majority of the smartphones is a contact list able to store as many contacts as the available memory permits, in contrast to regular phones that has a limit to the maximum number of contacts that can be stored."
It hurts arguments to complain that the 'other side' is cherry picking definitions to make their point, and then carefully cherry pick your own definition to make your point.
I think the best and most meaningful definition listed in the wikipedia article is this one:
" For some, a smartphone is a phone that runs complete operating system software providing a standardized interface and platform for application developers."
I find it pretty amazing when you mention this to most C# programmers, they'll go on about how different C# is from Java.
"They" do? Really! Funny, as a C# programmer who has fairly extensive experience with Java, I've never said any such thing. Maybe you should try *not* stereotyping large groups of people, eh?
I guess I should point out that since the reference poster said most his statement could still be accurate even if you are an exception.
Linux is good for technical people who enjoy chatting with the shell, while Windows users are lazy people who want to minimize the work on the computer to spend their time on other stuff.
Even though I am someone who hates Windows I have to challenge this. You are saying that if Windows users want to do things other than work on their computer, then they are lazy? I supposed someone who wants to work on research curing cancer instead of spending more time getting their computer to work is lazy.
3. Send email to users, stating web browsing will no longer be possible in IE6, and they must use $BROWSER. If they don't like it, too fucking bad. There are plenty of qualified people looking for jobs that could do what they do for less pay.y.
Wow!! And that would make you a real prick. I am sure all those lousy users deserve that kind of treatment...
There's a reason the kernel is not handled like the rest of Linux, but why we are all so stubborn to insist that everything else does not apply.
I think this is a critical point. The fact that the kernel is standardized and (mostly) not fractured over a number of forks seems to be the glue holding Linux together. Imagine where Linux would be without that stable foundation and imagine where it might be if some of the higher level parts were to become more standard.
You've hit the nail right on the head. 95% of users out there are not going to RTFM, will not open the command prompt, and will not edit a config file. Not because they're stupid, or lazy - but because it's not their job.
I wish I had mod points. The contempt for users I see among a large number (not all) Linux developers (users) is amazing. As is the fact that those same denigrated "users" could use the same justification for contempt of those Linux developer for those areas in which the user is more knowledgeable than the developer.
I am a physician but I never feel contempt for the stupidity of my patients or call them morons for not being as expert in medicine as am I. And I hope my mechanic does not consider me a moron for the fact that he could certainly limp a complex car along that would be beyond my interest or ability to keep going.
As soon as a few Linux developers (not all) learn that they are incompetent in far greater number of disciplines than those in which they are expert the world of FOSS will be a better, or a least more civil, community.
My impression of most Apple users is that they want not to use Microsoft products and do hide inside an elitist little club where there is no need for most of them to be concerned about technical issues. That's fine if that is what they want but those same people should not try to argue with people who do know what they are talking about when it comes to OSes - at least, in my case, when it comes to UNIX, Linux or Windows.
Most Apple people I know are very knowledgeable about other operating systems and make informed choices to use Macs. What does drive us nuts are those who criticize our choices but also freely admit...
I think the most important reasons for a lack of games is a purely business case reason predicated on market share.
It is not that the developers are walking away from 30-50 million Linux users, it is that they look at their limited development dollars and ask, 'It is more profitable to use our development talent to create games for those 30 to 50 million Linux users, or for 10 to 100x as many Windows users?'
This logic does not require any considerations of licenses and is at least partially divorced from cross-platform development issues.
I think we can summarize a lot of the discussion as follows:
"Which is better Apache/BSD or GPL?"
someone answers: "I think BSD is better because $REASON and so I use it instead of GPL which I don't like because of $OTHER_REASON."
next person responds:
"How dare you complain about the GPL. That's the condition for using their work. Don't like it? Find or write another solution."
The problem is is the first poster did exactly that. They said said 'I don't use the GPL because I don't like the conditions and therefore I choose or write another solution', which is exactly on topic with the main question of 'Which is better and why'?
Why do I constantly read somebody saying "I don't like the conditions of the GPL and therefore choose not to use it" followed immediately by some comment "If you don't like the GPL then don't use it."
Ah, but if language could change once it can change again, and once the number of people who think "piracy" is a silly term for copyright infringement crosses some magic threshold, it will lose that meaning.
I don't quite understand why on earth a product like the Kindle needs to exist.
The Kindle exists because many people other than you like it and want to buy it. Just because it doesn't meet your needs doesn't mean it doesn't meet the needs of others. I am sure that you own plenty of products that various other people would see no value in.
(I do not own a Kindle)
Re:Nope, it's the putative new users problem
on
Linux Needs Critics
·
· Score: 1
This very thread is a classic example of this misunderstanding
You are right, this thread is an example of a misunderstanding, but not the one you mean.
The originating poster is not talking to those open source developers who don't care about wider Linux adoption, or who are only scratching their own itch, etc. The poster is speaking (and responding) specifically to that subset of the community that DOES care about wider adoption, that advocates for wider adoption, or that belittles those who don't use Linux on technical, moral or other grounds. Your response IS understood, but you are not who the conversation is targeted towards. To those who don't care, fine, we accept it. But there are those who DO CARE, and the conversation is directed to them. It would be nice to stop getting constant feedback from the don't care group since it does not add to the conversation.
It's like someone asking "What can we do to combat world hunger" and lots of people piping up saying "We don't care about world hunger, we don't feel guilty about it, it is not our problem or interest" whereas they should have realized the intended meaning was really "For those who are interested in combating world hunger, what can we do to combat world hunger?, and if you are not interested, that's fine, but let us who are talk about it"
(By the way, I don't care whether Linux adoption grows or not, but I find it disturbing for people to constantly talk past each other.)
I just want to add that KDE communication regarding 4.0 was horrible. They might have communicated its beta (or even alpha) status in one way, but naming conventions are also a type of communication and in their choice of 4.0 they communicated a different message. Therefore the KDE developers are clearly to blame for the misunderstanding. It would have been soooo easy to simply call it 4.0 beta.
I wish I had mod points as I think this is important. The reality it that being able to modify Javascript as suggested may be philosophically pure, but is simply not important or reasonable when evaluated by any practical considerations. And eventually practical considerations do have to be weighed when one is choosing what battles to fight.
You're describing here a system with three kinds of compoments: (a) client software, (b) server software, (c) server data. It's much harder to argue that (b) should be free software
RMS did specifically mention that the "problem" of server software would be discussed separately.
(Also, for what it is worth, I think worrying about non-free Javascript takes things a little (a lot) too far. Might as well waste time worrying about the non-free software in your microwave or electric toothbrush, although I know many will disagree.)
The MOST valuable technology they had were refined metals. If they wanted to keep the entire population from starving to death they needed to make such things as metal plows, and pronto. At the VERY least they would have landed the ships (that could be landed) and mined them for their metal.
The ending was stupid. And I loved the show so I hated that. It left me feeling empty inside.
I am going to chime in and say: I don't need a large capacity iPod. I get by fine with my 8 gig iPhone. However if someone wants a high capacity iPod because it is more convenient for THEM and the way THEY do things, then that is the iPod they want. It is as valid a preference as someone who changes out their playlists each week, or someone else who maintains a remote server with all their music. Why criticize? Why even argue that ones (highly personal and subjective) way of doing something is the only reasonable way?
I think for an open wireless network, it is different. A garden variety wireless router running a DHCP server hands out IP address when asked. In fact many computer are configured by default to automatically join open networks. By leaving the network open you are in fact inviting others to join and the router is functioning normally by broadcasting its name and then assigning computers that connect a private IP address.
As soon as the network owner takes any action to secure the network, such as turning off SSID broadcast, or setting up encryption, then the situation has changed, but otherwise by leaving the network completely open you HAVE given permission. To go back to the house analogy, it would be like hanging an OPEN HOUSE sign on your front door and then assigning someone to stand at the door and hand out name tags.
Speaking as someone who DOES NOT use IE I think part of the point should be to note that when a study comes out that shows Firefox being faster than IE the average Slashdoter jumps all over it to trumpet the virtues of Firefox, but when a study shows the reverse then suddenly speed is not important. I reminds me a bit of Mozilla's reponse to ACID3.
If these results are true then we should give IE at least a bit of credit.
I am not trying to start (or continue) any long discussion, but the poster was responding to having their choice to use a Mac devalued. Therefore they were pointing out that their choice did have value (and merit). You cannot understand the post without understanding it was a response. If the post had NOT been a response to provocation then perhaps you could see it as a "shot", but as it was you (of all people) should understand someone bristling at being insulted.
They were only saying that their choice had merit, not that yours did not. Original poster please correct me if I am wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Companies don't try to offer every possible product any consumer might want. That tends to dilute their focus. Instead they tend to offer those products likely to have a significant impact on their bottom line and then focus development, marketing, and support towards those products.
In order for AT&T to offer that service to Nook owners the market has to be large enough to be worth their time. They also have to consider such issues as to whether they already have a product that they have an investment in that currently meets all or most of that market, whether the new product would bring new customers or just cannibalize existing customers, and whether their business partners are interested in pursuing such products.
The whole process is complicated and the fact that one or more customers exist for a given product is not in and of itself justification to sell a product.
I think the point is, there ARE other products that provide general computer functionality with a cellular connection.
The Nook is an eBook reader and that is all is aspires to be. That is it's business model. There is room in this world for specialized devices (they don't ALL have to all be general purpose) and I certainly think companies should have the option of creating special business arrangements (such as a constant cellular connection supported by book purchases) to support those devices.
Of course AT&T will lock this down. That is the right think to do so that those people who DO want a device such as this is, will be able to get it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone
Some choice quotes:
"Most devices considered smartphones today use an identifiable operating system"
"One common feature to the majority of the smartphones is a contact list able to store as many contacts as the available memory permits, in contrast to regular phones that has a limit to the maximum number of contacts that can be stored."
It hurts arguments to complain that the 'other side' is cherry picking definitions to make their point, and then carefully cherry pick your own definition to make your point.
I think the best and most meaningful definition listed in the wikipedia article is this one:
" For some, a smartphone is a phone that runs complete operating system software providing a standardized interface and platform for application developers."
But that is my opinion.
I find it pretty amazing when you mention this to most C# programmers, they'll go on about how different C# is from Java.
"They" do? Really! Funny, as a C# programmer who has fairly extensive experience with Java, I've never said any such thing. Maybe you should try *not* stereotyping large groups of people, eh?
I guess I should point out that since the reference poster said most his statement could still be accurate even if you are an exception.
Thank you for the clarification. I do not disagree with your point.
Linux is good for technical people who enjoy chatting with the shell, while Windows users are lazy people who want to minimize the work on the computer to spend their time on other stuff.
Even though I am someone who hates Windows I have to challenge this. You are saying that if Windows users want to do things other than work on their computer, then they are lazy? I supposed someone who wants to work on research curing cancer instead of spending more time getting their computer to work is lazy.
Damn, I hate lazy people.
3. Send email to users, stating web browsing will no longer be possible in IE6, and they must use $BROWSER. If they don't like it, too fucking bad. There are plenty of qualified people looking for jobs that could do what they do for less pay.y.
Wow!! And that would make you a real prick. I am sure all those lousy users deserve that kind of treatment...
There's a reason the kernel is not handled like the rest of Linux, but why we are all so stubborn to insist that everything else does not apply.
I think this is a critical point. The fact that the kernel is standardized and (mostly) not fractured over a number of forks seems to be the glue holding Linux together. Imagine where Linux would be without that stable foundation and imagine where it might be if some of the higher level parts were to become more standard.
You've hit the nail right on the head. 95% of users out there are not going to RTFM, will not open the command prompt, and will not edit a config file. Not because they're stupid, or lazy - but because it's not their job.
I wish I had mod points. The contempt for users I see among a large number (not all) Linux developers (users) is amazing. As is the fact that those same denigrated "users" could use the same justification for contempt of those Linux developer for those areas in which the user is more knowledgeable than the developer.
I am a physician but I never feel contempt for the stupidity of my patients or call them morons for not being as expert in medicine as am I. And I hope my mechanic does not consider me a moron for the fact that he could certainly limp a complex car along that would be beyond my interest or ability to keep going.
As soon as a few Linux developers (not all) learn that they are incompetent in far greater number of disciplines than those in which they are expert the world of FOSS will be a better, or a least more civil, community.
Although I don't agree with your conclusion (in a global sense), I do however I stand corrected as to your point.
My impression of most Apple users is that they want not to use Microsoft products and do hide inside an elitist little club where there is no need for most of them to be concerned about technical issues. That's fine if that is what they want but those same people should not try to argue with people who do know what they are talking about when it comes to OSes - at least, in my case, when it comes to UNIX, Linux or Windows.
Most Apple people I know are very knowledgeable about other operating systems and make informed choices to use Macs. What does drive us nuts are those who criticize our choices but also freely admit...
I don't use Apple.
and
I know nothing about OSX.
I think the most important reasons for a lack of games is a purely business case reason predicated on market share.
It is not that the developers are walking away from 30-50 million Linux users, it is that they look at their limited development dollars and ask, 'It is more profitable to use our development talent to create games for those 30 to 50 million Linux users, or for 10 to 100x as many Windows users?'
This logic does not require any considerations of licenses and is at least partially divorced from cross-platform development issues.
I think we can summarize a lot of the discussion as follows:
"Which is better Apache/BSD or GPL?"
someone answers: "I think BSD is better because $REASON and so I use it instead of GPL which I don't like because of $OTHER_REASON."
next person responds: "How dare you complain about the GPL. That's the condition for using their work. Don't like it? Find or write another solution."
The problem is is the first poster did exactly that. They said said 'I don't use the GPL because I don't like the conditions and therefore I choose or write another solution', which is exactly on topic with the main question of 'Which is better and why'?
Why do I constantly read somebody saying "I don't like the conditions of the GPL and therefore choose not to use it" followed immediately by some comment "If you don't like the GPL then don't use it."
Isn't that what they just said?
Ah, but if language could change once it can change again, and once the number of people who think "piracy" is a silly term for copyright infringement crosses some magic threshold, it will lose that meaning.
Don't hold your breath.
I don't quite understand why on earth a product like the Kindle needs to exist.
The Kindle exists because many people other than you like it and want to buy it. Just because it doesn't meet your needs doesn't mean it doesn't meet the needs of others. I am sure that you own plenty of products that various other people would see no value in.
(I do not own a Kindle)
This very thread is a classic example of this misunderstanding
You are right, this thread is an example of a misunderstanding, but not the one you mean.
The originating poster is not talking to those open source developers who don't care about wider Linux adoption, or who are only scratching their own itch, etc. The poster is speaking (and responding) specifically to that subset of the community that DOES care about wider adoption, that advocates for wider adoption, or that belittles those who don't use Linux on technical, moral or other grounds. Your response IS understood, but you are not who the conversation is targeted towards. To those who don't care, fine, we accept it. But there are those who DO CARE, and the conversation is directed to them. It would be nice to stop getting constant feedback from the don't care group since it does not add to the conversation.
It's like someone asking "What can we do to combat world hunger" and lots of people piping up saying "We don't care about world hunger, we don't feel guilty about it, it is not our problem or interest" whereas they should have realized the intended meaning was really "For those who are interested in combating world hunger, what can we do to combat world hunger?, and if you are not interested, that's fine, but let us who are talk about it"
(By the way, I don't care whether Linux adoption grows or not, but I find it disturbing for people to constantly talk past each other.)
I just want to add that KDE communication regarding 4.0 was horrible. They might have communicated its beta (or even alpha) status in one way, but naming conventions are also a type of communication and in their choice of 4.0 they communicated a different message. Therefore the KDE developers are clearly to blame for the misunderstanding. It would have been soooo easy to simply call it 4.0 beta.
Bzzt. But there would be a large point to searching for Hera.
I wish I had mod points as I think this is important. The reality it that being able to modify Javascript as suggested may be philosophically pure, but is simply not important or reasonable when evaluated by any practical considerations. And eventually practical considerations do have to be weighed when one is choosing what battles to fight.
You're describing here a system with three kinds of compoments: (a) client software, (b) server software, (c) server data. It's much harder to argue that (b) should be free software
RMS did specifically mention that the "problem" of server software would be discussed separately. (Also, for what it is worth, I think worrying about non-free Javascript takes things a little (a lot) too far. Might as well waste time worrying about the non-free software in your microwave or electric toothbrush, although I know many will disagree.)
The MOST valuable technology they had were refined metals. If they wanted to keep the entire population from starving to death they needed to make such things as metal plows, and pronto. At the VERY least they would have landed the ships (that could be landed) and mined them for their metal. The ending was stupid. And I loved the show so I hated that. It left me feeling empty inside.
I am going to chime in and say: I don't need a large capacity iPod. I get by fine with my 8 gig iPhone. However if someone wants a high capacity iPod because it is more convenient for THEM and the way THEY do things, then that is the iPod they want. It is as valid a preference as someone who changes out their playlists each week, or someone else who maintains a remote server with all their music. Why criticize? Why even argue that ones (highly personal and subjective) way of doing something is the only reasonable way?
I think for an open wireless network, it is different. A garden variety wireless router running a DHCP server hands out IP address when asked. In fact many computer are configured by default to automatically join open networks. By leaving the network open you are in fact inviting others to join and the router is functioning normally by broadcasting its name and then assigning computers that connect a private IP address.
As soon as the network owner takes any action to secure the network, such as turning off SSID broadcast, or setting up encryption, then the situation has changed, but otherwise by leaving the network completely open you HAVE given permission. To go back to the house analogy, it would be like hanging an OPEN HOUSE sign on your front door and then assigning someone to stand at the door and hand out name tags.
Speaking as someone who DOES NOT use IE I think part of the point should be to note that when a study comes out that shows Firefox being faster than IE the average Slashdoter jumps all over it to trumpet the virtues of Firefox, but when a study shows the reverse then suddenly speed is not important. I reminds me a bit of Mozilla's reponse to ACID3.
If these results are true then we should give IE at least a bit of credit.
I am not trying to start (or continue) any long discussion, but the poster was responding to having their choice to use a Mac devalued. Therefore they were pointing out that their choice did have value (and merit). You cannot understand the post without understanding it was a response. If the post had NOT been a response to provocation then perhaps you could see it as a "shot", but as it was you (of all people) should understand someone bristling at being insulted.
They were only saying that their choice had merit, not that yours did not. Original poster please correct me if I am wrong.