My guess is, who fucking cares? You don't like her music. Do like I do. Don't buy it. Change the channel if you see her on TV. Whatever.
You know, it really is the dumbest comeback to any argument to say "don't buy it" or "don't watch it". I can figure out the obvious on my own. When we're discussing a topic, and I use Britney as an example, I don't need you to tell me how to avoid her. This is an abstract argument about quality of music. You're focussing on the literal example I used. You need to learn to seperate the literal from the abstract.
If you need a more concrete example, what would you think if I had replied "if you don't like my argument then don't read it". Do you think that's a devastating response to your comments? If not, maybe you'll appreciate why I'm not even slightly convinced by what you've said.
All music IS subjective.
You know, after I'd just said that music is both subjective and objective, I would have thought you'd have more sense than to say "nah-uhh, you're wrong".
You cannot objectively compare music without defining the terms involved. If you were to say:
Britney spears is a poor songwriter.
I might agree, except that I'm not aware that she ever claimed to be, nor do I know any song she's written and performed herself.
Yeah, if I'd said that then you'd have made a brilliant response. What a shame that I didn't say that. I said she's a crap singer. In other words, I "defin[ed] the terms involved". You purposefully ignored what I said, said I didn't "defin[e] the terms", then put another claim into my mouth so you could argue against it.
As for "untalented person who sings off-key", some of my favorite bands have singers who cannot sing for shit, but that doesn't undermine the fact that I still like their music.
I don't disagree. One of my favourite bands is Flaming Lips and he can't sing for shit. But if the _only_ artistic quality is singing and they can't sing for shit (ie, Britney Spears) then you have to wonder why they're selling. Once again, don't focus on the example, focus on the argument.
Monopoly: Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service.
(does the RIAA have total control of all records? No. There is still independant labels that dont work under them, and there are ways around it. Once the RIAA's profit lowers, they will lower or raise the price of their albums to go back to equilibruim.)
An independent label does not disprove an RIAA monopoly (aka cartel). Just like the tiny marketshare of Apple and Linux did not prevent Judge Jackson from determining that Microsoft held a monopoly for PC desktop operating systems.
Its high school economics. And now, some definitions.
I don't know which high school you went to but I don't know of any high school that teaches economics. The earliest I've ever heard it taught was tertiary education (aka university).
Capitalism: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
The wonderful thing about definitions is that there are so many to choose from. For example, another (IMO better) definition is:
An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state-control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
So my book says that competition is inherently a part of capitalism. You seperated the two as distinct things. I say that competition is part of capitalism and cannot be seperated.
The real problem is the 48 year old baby boomer mothers who have to go buy the next Brittney album for their 13 year old daughter. They will buy any CD no matter the price. That is what is keeping the RIAA alive right now.
I've no issue with 13 year old daughters who want to listen to Britney or 48 year old mothers who buy it for them. People can listen to whatever they damn well want to. I have an issue with the RIAA setting the price. If capitalism was allowed to operate then there would be multiple sources for Britney CDs and the market should set the price. But there is only one vendor for Britney (RIAA member, Jive Records). They set the price because they're the only supplier of Britney's recordings.
It doesn't need to be 100% ready. It just needs to be "good enough".
Was DOS 100% ready? Hell no. Was Windows 100% ready? Definitely not. At the risk of angering the MacOS X fanatics (who are even worse than Linux fanatics for outright blinkerism) even MacOS X isn't 100% ready.
Nothing is ever 100% ready. Nothing is perfect. The trick is to know when it's good enough. Linux is good enough for desktops just like it was good enough for SMB servers about 5 years ago. Linux wasn't a 100% server platform. Heck, it wasn't a 95% server platform. Solaris and AIX kicked its arse sixteen ways from Sunday. But it was good enough and Linux has a huge presence in the SMB server market now.
Linux most definitely wasn't good enough for desktops 5 years ago. The only reasonable word processor was Applixware (for optimistic definitions of reasonable) but it cost too much. Linux _is_ good enough these days for the business desktop market. I still think it's not quite ready for the home market, but I think the home market is dead anyway. But that's an argument for another day.
So, we're only about 6 years behind other major operating systems in something so basic. Yay!
Yay! And MacOS only recently got preeemptive multitasking and memory protection. So they're only 6 years behind every other major PC operating system in something so basic. Yay!
Or, more realistically, an operating system isn't entirely valued by any single feature.
As the mods to the parent post illustrates, when people who have legitimate grievances and complaints with the usability of desktop linux get attacked by the linux faithful and get modded as flamebait, it's very easy to see why linux has been "almost ready" for nearly a decade.
These people with legitimate grievances are writing on/. as opposed to, oh I don't know, using that Report Bug feature that the article mentioned.
As of the time I read their comments, they'd been moderated Informative, Insightful and Interesting. I don't see any Flamebait moderation on their grievances.
At least two responses were along the lines of "I tried what you described and it does not fail in the way you claimed". Casts serious doubt on the accuracy of the grievance.
Linux is running on my desktop now and it has been for _more_ than a decade. Remember, DOS was suitable for the desktop too. GUIs don't have to be perfect, or even exist, for the desktop to be ready.
If the market will bear $2.99 CD's then they have the right to sell at that price. Don't like it? Don't buy. Unfortunately for you, there are millions of people who WILL pay the price.
That's not capitalism. Capitalism is where they charge $2.99, you don't like it, so you buy from SOMEBODY ELSE at a LOWER PRICE. That process continues until it's impossible to produce the song any cheaper.
They've been selling at 99c for ages. Now they are discussing a unilateral hike of 200%. That should be your first warning sign that capitalism is not working here! Where are the other online vendors selling the same songs at 50c? Or the same songs at 10c? If 10c is unrealistic (maybe it is but I suspect it isn't) then THE MARKET will find the actual sustainable pricepoint. The very second you hear that the RIAA is deciding the "sustainable" pricepoint instead of the market is the very same second you should have realised this is not capitalism. This is a cartel.
If capitalism was working then the prices would have dropped for music. That's how it works in every other industry. Company A makes steel bars for $1/bar at 10% profit. Company B thinks 5% profit is sufficient and sells bars for 99c/bar. Company A decreases their production costs (perhaps by innovating new techniques) and sells bars for 95c/bar. THAT is capitalism. It's using THE MARKET to drive innovation, reduce costs, self-regulate the quantity of production, while still producing the cheapest goods.
In the music industry the prices have gone up and up and up. Even faster than inflation. While production costs have gone down - a music studio and CD production facility can be built in your spare bedroom for under $10k these days, compared to $10s of millions only 2 decades ago - the CD prices have not dropped. Why? Because this isn't capitalism! Production costs are down, yet prices are up. Market is flooded with alternatives, yet prices are up. Look at the big picture. It's NOT CAPITALISM.
See, while *you* may think shit like Britney Spears and Metallica suck ass, the millions of albums they continue to sell firmly says otherwise to the millions of fans they continue to cater to.
Britney Spears _is_ crap music. She can't play a musical instrument. She can't sing (ever heard her warble without the voice machine to fix up all her vocal inadequacies). The lyrics and melodies are very lame, even for teenage pop music.
But you're right, she does sell millions. Why? It's pretty obvious why. She's gorgeous, she's young, and she dances suggestively. I've just had the misfortune to see her latest video clip. She plays an aeroplane stewardess who has sex with all the passengers! Then she slinks around "naked" (actually wearing a flesh toned lycra body suit). She's appealing to the raging hormones in every teenage boy, and the image-obsessed teenage girls who want to mimic her every move.
What that's saying is that it _is_ crap music but it is also a brilliant package. People buy Britney for the _whole package_. The dancing. The video clips. The bubbly "How I Do My Makeup" articles in Teen Dream Magazine (or whatever they call it these days). If you took away the video clips and the posters and the magazines and the _idolism_, how long do you think Britney would last? My guess is, she would never have had any attention in the first place.
Tastes in music is subjective, get that through your head. I think bands like Incubus, Limp Bizkit, and Rage Against the Machine are horrible,
Well isn't that interesting. You've lumped in RATM with those other two bands. Now I don't actually like Incubus or Limp Bizkit, though I do respect them because they play their own instruments and write their own songs (a rarity these days). But RATM is different. They had a huge fanbase well before they ever got their first MTV music clip. People turned up to their gigs because of their lyrics, their stage presence, and to hear the music. Because let's face it, not even a mother could love those faces. They're ugly bastards.
Riddle me this. How many pubs, clubs or dance halls did Britney play in before she became an overnight sensation? My measure of a band is, if they had a paying audience before they were famous then they're probably worth hearing. If the band members never met each other until the marketting machine began then I smell a rat.
By the same reasoning, you mightn't like Metallica, but there's no denying that they were extremely popular even before the RIAA got their hooks in. When they were playing pubs and small gigs they were receiving rave reviews from the fans. Their music was good, well before the video clips and the multi-million stage shows and the merchandising. It can be argued that they've turned shit in the past few years, though I think St Anger is a long overdue step in the right direction.
Tastes in music is subjective, get that through your head.
To quickly finish this off, I get mightily tired of the "music is all subjective" argument. I know you weaseled out of that with "tastes in music" but I'm going to rant towards empty space. Music is both subjective and objective. An untalented person who sings off-key is objectively a poor singer. It doesn't matter if you like or dislike the genre or the song or the person's face; you can still measure the quality of their singing.
The other day, a friend directly connected his G3 iBook to my 1.4Ghz P-M laptop over 100mbit ethernet. As he copied large files from me, my computer bogged down and was unusable. Just switching windows to something already open was painful to watch. His iBook, though, just hummed along - he could switch to other apps and use them just fine. Very frustrating.
So....would the Linux kernel 2.6.x be extremely responsivle to user input, no matter what else is going on?
100Mbps shouldn't have bogged down any modern computer. A lowly Pentium-100 can flood a 100Mbps ethernet interface. Hard disks are good for at least 20MBps (160Mbps) even in laptops. Your CPU is plenty adequate for realtime SSH encryption (3DES?).
I know this will sound like a copout, but I suspect you have a driver problem. Possible culprits:
Your hard disk is in PIO mode, not DMA mode. The kernel often uses the "safer" PIO mode but that results in a huge number of interrupts. An otherwise fast machine will feel like crap when that happens. Check your mode with/sbin/hdparm.
Your ethernet driver (or possibly chipset) simply isn't very good. Cheap chipsets have high interrupt rates that can destroy performance. Or the Linux driver mightn't be up to snuff (yet). Check/proc/interrupts. Try another ethernet card (PCMCIA?).
A 2.6 kernel will give you better interactive response but 2.4 shouldn't have felt unwieldy in the first place. I suspect something else is wrong. Upgrading to 2.6 might fix the actual problem though (newer drivers, etc).
It's frustrating that it doesn't work out of the box and you have to do this. If you buy a laptop preinstalled with Linux (lots of companies now doing this) then the vendor will do all the tweaks for you. Because you've installed your own OS you're responsible for doing the tweaks. More work for you.
Unless you're specifically using this G5 machine for number crunching on a 64 bit level, what justifies the price of the hardware if you're not using that beautiful os?
What's so beautiful about the Macintosh OS? It's BSD combined with Mach. It's not that spectacular. It's definitely not cutting edge. It's just a UNIX clone.
If you're talking about the GUI, well, that just becomes a matter of personal preference. I know this might be hard to believe, but some of us prefer Linux.
Not all of us are so easily impressed by flashing lights and shiny things.
Just curious.... but who wipes out MacOSX on the G5 to replace it with Linux? Call me a troll, but I just don't see the point when there are cheaper architectures out there.
Presumably people who want to run certain Linux applications on the G5 processor.
Why was this a question? Isn't the answer pretty obvious.
But the fact remains that everyone else likes the music coming out, especially young kids. You guys sound like old fogies--actually, you sound like my parents when I was growing up and they heard my music.
Yeah, but the counter argument is that I like modern music. And I like my parents' music. And I like my grandparents' music. Each generation has had great music. Looking at my own CD collection (600+ and that's pressed silver CDs bought legit from the store, not burns) about 50% was produced in the last decade.
My tastes are eclectic. A short sample of music that I like: Prodigy, Roxy Music, Ravel, Fear Factory, Satriani, Prince, Groove Armada, Queens of the Stone Age, Tracy Chapman, Daft Punk, Led Zeppelin, Robert Johnson, Megadeth, Dave Brubeck, Count Basie, Aphex Twin, Beastie Boys, Chemical Brothers, Propellerheads, Ween, Robert Miles, Underworld, Oscar Peterson, Faith No More, Cure, Rammstein, New Order.
That's just my current playlist. But how many songs do I like in the current top-100? I think 4 and The Darkness counts for 2 of those. It's not that I don't like modern music - that short sample list up above should prove that - but rather that I don't like the current top-100. In fact, I have never liked the top-100 (I started listening in the early 80s). Oh sure, sometimes there is a song I like, but 95% of it sucks.
But even though 95% of the top-100 for the past 20 years has sucked, I've noticed that I like more than 50% of the music on the top-100 from the 60s and 70s. That was before I was even born! So I think the top-100 really has declined in recent years. I can't accept that personal tastes alone could account for such a dramatic decline.
God, 'music' is the suck today! Either that, or I'm just too old.
The "you're too old" argument seems to be used often (and for every generation, which is a point in its favour) but I don't buy. I say the way to settle the argument is to look at the top-100 lists from the past 50 years and evaluate these criteria:
How many of the artists could actually play an instrument.
How many of the artists were ugly as sin and/or were older than 30.
How many songs were original and not just covers or remixes.
How frequently did new genres emerge (eg, jazz, rock, punk, techno, grunge).
I've not done the figures on anything other than a casual (superficial) level but it's my impression that today's top-100 is dominated by gorgeous young people, wearing very few clothes, who can sing and dance but not play a musical instrument, and they're singing covers of older songs. There are _rare_ exceptions to the rule.
And the interesting thing is that it's not a recent phenomenon. Looking at the charts, I see it started in the early 80s. That ties in very nicely with music videos. Hrm.
That's not the same thing as saying that all modern music is like that. Just that the top-100 is like that. Go back 50 years and you had ugly people singing _and_playing_ original stuff. Now we get anonymous backing bands and choreographed dance troupes with gyrating bikini babes to add scenery. Pop quiz: who is Britney Spear's lead guitarist? I bet even Britney's fans don't know.
The interesting thing is that even though the RIAA only promotes pretty people - for example, Christina in 5 square inches of cloth, and 50-cent with his shirt off (again) - the music fans aren't that shallow. American Idol is mindless drek but it's interesting to see who wins. The Australian Idol is a homely looking chubby guy with bad hair (and he beat the handsome "stud"). The World Idol is an ugly man with bad teeth. The Canadian Idol is a geek in glasses. The American Idol is a fat bastard. But they could all sing. There's no denying that there was talent in them all. Appearance and pretty bodies isn't the #1 concern for the audience. So why do the top-100 video clips look like an episode of Baywatch?
Fortunately there's plenty of good music out there. It's just no longer on the top-100 (or, sadly, on the radio). I think the RIAA figured out that sexy bodies sells better, especially when the target audience is sexually repressed Americans, so they stopped caring about talent and started looking at the package it came in.
Maybe, Satriani, overall, has more artistic quality than Pere Ubu. But his art would certainly lie in the actually technicals of playing the guitar. I'm not really familiar with that. No, troll.
I'm a huge fan of Satriani and his artistic qualities are not limited to his technical ability. Flying in a Blue Dream is a beautiful song, easily on par with anything from John Williams (Sky). Strange Beautiful Music shows that Satriani knows more about music than just playing the guitar; he deftly branched out into percussive and progressive beats. Sure, Satriani has oodles of technical ability, so his songs demonstrate that, but I wouldn't listen to his music if all he could do was play the guitar very well. His song-writing ability makes his music enjoyable. Isn't that the most important artistic ability of them all?
I guess Jobs was right in saying that Apple's competetiors don't "get it." The iPod Mini, for example, may seem like an absurdity to us/.ers because of its high price, low capacity, and low feature set.
The mini doesn't seem absurd to me. 4GB is more space than I want. The colours look cool. The smaller form factor is a bonus.
Moreover, everyone seems to be saying that Sun has capitulated to MS. I am the only one who suspects that it may be the other way around? Sun threatened to sue for over a billion to penalize MS for anti-competitive behavior toward Java. Now they're collecting about 2 billion, and have reached agreements about technical co-operation concerning Java, as well as.NET and network protocols and some other things. Doesn't that look as if MS did not expect to prevail, at least on the issues related to Java, and both sides gained from avoiding lengthy court proceedings? The two companies may begin co-operating on technical standards, and compete on products. Isn't this what we expect technology corporations to do?
You're not the only one. I think this is one of Sun's smartest moves in years. If they had continued through the courts this might have taken another 3-4 years. Any "winnings" would have been in the same ballpark of $2 billion. There was no sense in continuing the lawsuit.
The technology exchange, however, is even more important than the money. Sun is getting creamed in the server market. Why? Not the cost: hardware is cheap compared to people. Not the software: it's old but it works and is dependable. It's the interoperability. Sun servers just don't play nice with Windows. With Windows dominating the desktop market, Sun was losing the server market to clearly inferior Windows servers.
Sun has a two pronged strategy now. Deliver Solaris-friendly desktops (aka Sun Java Desktop) and improve their Java/Solaris support for Windows desktops. Sensible. Intelligent. Probably the only way Sun will survive the next decade.
The $2 billion is a token though. It's a lot of money but it doesn't sustain a company like Sun for a decade. The $2 billion was a way for Microsoft to compensate Sun without losing face. The technology exchange was the big thing here.
You're like the second or third person to pull the "b-but there are multiple Windows toolkits" sham when it's not really true. Win32 is the standard, and.NET will be the standard in 2006--there aren't multiple major toolkits competing with each other like there is with GTK and QT.
Dude, you just listed three competing Windows toolkits (DirectX, MFC and.NET) and then you say there aren't multiple major toolkits competing with each other? Read what you write before you hit submit!
In fact, it's not even as few as just three. At a bare minimum you've got.NET, Java, Win32, MFC, Win16, Forms, and OWL. Yes, there are still plenty of Win16 apps out there being maintained. If you want to consider enterprise app toolkits you've got PowerBuilder and other 4-GENs. I'm not even going to list all the free toolkits (XUL, QT, GTK, Wx) because I'll swamp you with 100s of names.
If your only argument is "but MFC and.NET are the most popular" then I'll counter with "GNOME and KDE are the most popular". You don't have an argument, and you know it.
Btw, if I was being entirely pedantic I'd say that MFC and.NET aren't actually toolkits. They are foundation classes and frameworks. But you brought this terminology to the table so you can live with it.
I don't get why bringing up Windows has much to do with anything anyway.
I didn't bring it up. Take your grievances to the person who started this thread.
People are so anti-"M$" and anti-monopoly and anti-"dictatorship" that they're obsessed with offering 20 choices instead of integrating and offering one incredibly good one. It's silly.
The only silly thing here is that you think multiple toolkits exist because the developers are anti-Microsoft. Haven't you noticed that there are multiple toolkits on every platform? Open your eyes, man!
If we're weren't currently having VM issues with 2.4 (servers with 8gig+ memory) I wouldn't care. But we're seriously thinking of using 2.6 in production to resolve it. No, stop laughing, really.
Actually I don't think I'm going to read any more kernel changelogs.
Actually, isn't it great that you can read kernel changelogs. You're informed. You can make an educated decision that, for your purposes, 2.6 isn't up to your standards for production usage. Aren't you happier that you're not being kept in the dark?
More information is always good. I'm happier when the vendor is honest and upfront with me, rather than letting me discover bugs on my own. Linux is the most transparent development I've ever seen. It gives me great confidence in the product; I'm certain that any serious bugs will be announced loudly and widely. That's something I'm not so sure will happen with closed-source products.
No, I don't pirate software. If I need to run MS Windows software, I can use my Universal MSDN subscription to run any MS Software I may need, which my company purchases for me each year.
Giggle. Yes, I suppose that $500 PC really is cheaper when your company purchases $2500 worth of MSDN subscription for you per year.
Now, your average user, I suppose your company buys them an MSDN subscription as well. No? Well then you realise you're an exception.
Yup, that [Linux] is all I have ran on my home systems for a good 4 years now.
Good for you. I'm the same. I feel no need to pay for software when Linux provides 90% of the functionality at 0% of the price. But you do realise we're both in the minority. Most users run Windows. Most users don't pay for it. Most users don't have a prepaid MSDN subscription. So why don't we stick to most users, because you're a very exceptional person.
The average Joe Home User does not pirate software, they wouldn't know how to do it or where to look. It is your typical teen user that is pirating software.
You're living in denial. The average home user asks their teenage son/daughter to get the software for the new computer. You're off your rocker if you think most people are legit.
Why do all Apple zealots think that Apple has this continual 5% market share? I have never seen anywhere that put Apple's dektop market share at or near 5%.
Damn, dude. Who are you talking to? I didn't say anything about Apple's market share. That "5%" figure is yours, not mine. Apple Zealot? My desktop has been Linux since 1992.
Yes, I get your point that it's better than the windows registry. But for me, it still doesn't add anything, while it certainly makes things harder for me. Instead of just looking in ~/.[app-name] I also have to search in ~/.gconf/
I don't see why you think ~/.appname is OK but ~/.gconf/apps/appname is harder.
If I change the layout of the.xml file to suit my tastes or include comments, trust gconf to mess that up again.
No, it doesn't. Try it and you'll see. Gconf is smarter than that.
Also, while the hierarchical structure might be more convenient for gconf itself, it's almost impossible for me to create a configuration file from scratch like I do for many programs.
Once again, why is it harder? Have you ever created a gconf file from scratch? How hard was it? What were the hard parts?
I don't mind discussing the theory, but at some point you have to back up the theory with the facts. As a person with 15 years (no shit) UNIX experience, I think gconf is a huge step in the right direction. I'm personally sick to death of rc-files. They're always different formats, and all the parsers have their own unique bugs.
For a Gnome-centric environment, gconf and Gnome's VFS system might be the best solution. But for someone who prefers to use the best app for the job regardless of its Gnome-ness and thus has to combine Gnome and non-Gnome programs, it's quite a messy situation.
You don't have to use libgnome to use gconf. The library was purposefully kept separate. In fact, gconf is an ideal way to add modern conf control to your application. Rather than reinvent the wheel (probably by writing your own parser, with its own unique bugs) just use gconf. The library is well debugged and fast.
My idea of an ideal configuration system is one where a program has reasonable defaults, and allows me to override those with a simple dotfile.
And gconf doesn't detract from that. It's up to the apps to have reasonable defaults. Gconf doesn't automatically make applications choose unreasonable defaults! You can still override the defaults with a simple file. But the file is self-documented and easily verified for syntax correctness (just pass the file through any XML verifier). All modern text editors (emacs/vim) have XML highlighting. Why are you opposed to it? The reasons you've given so far seem flimsy.
What desktop linux needs is ONE desktop to replace them all. That is; one set of widgets, one way of doing everything, and one interface for developing gui apps for linux...
As long as there is choice, there will be no breakthrough. One more choice won't help either.
Having programmed in the Windows environment, I know there are multiple competing widget sets there too, so I know your argument is fundamentally wrong.
But even assuming you're right. Assuming that Linux will never "breakthrough" without a single unified widget set. A single desktop. My question is... so what?
Does it matter? Who cares if Linux never gets bigger than this? It rocks pretty mightily right now. I'm really happy with it. I got started with Linux so I could get UNIX@home. Ok, admittedly I already had UNIX@home (Interactive) but Linux was simply better. So I was happy back in 1992.
Everything since then has been gravy. If you had told me in 1997 that I'd be playing 3D games and using state-of-the-art word processors on Linux, I'd have laughed at you and gone back to nethack and LaTeX. But now I'm sitting in front of a GNOME 2.6 desktop typing into a modern web browser. I'm in utter disbelief that it's this good. I would have been happy with command line UNIX! This is way more than I ever expected.
So does it matter if Linux doesn't take over 100% of the market? I say it doesn't matter. I think it will happen anyway, but I won't cry if it doesn't. Linux rocks already. I'm content. Aren't you?
Slashdot Mirror
You know, it really is the dumbest comeback to any argument to say "don't buy it" or "don't watch it". I can figure out the obvious on my own. When we're discussing a topic, and I use Britney as an example, I don't need you to tell me how to avoid her. This is an abstract argument about quality of music. You're focussing on the literal example I used. You need to learn to seperate the literal from the abstract.
If you need a more concrete example, what would you think if I had replied "if you don't like my argument then don't read it". Do you think that's a devastating response to your comments? If not, maybe you'll appreciate why I'm not even slightly convinced by what you've said.
You know, after I'd just said that music is both subjective and objective, I would have thought you'd have more sense than to say "nah-uhh, you're wrong".
Yeah, if I'd said that then you'd have made a brilliant response. What a shame that I didn't say that. I said she's a crap singer. In other words, I "defin[ed] the terms involved". You purposefully ignored what I said, said I didn't "defin[e] the terms", then put another claim into my mouth so you could argue against it.
I don't disagree. One of my favourite bands is Flaming Lips and he can't sing for shit. But if the _only_ artistic quality is singing and they can't sing for shit (ie, Britney Spears) then you have to wonder why they're selling. Once again, don't focus on the example, focus on the argument.
An independent label does not disprove an RIAA monopoly (aka cartel). Just like the tiny marketshare of Apple and Linux did not prevent Judge Jackson from determining that Microsoft held a monopoly for PC desktop operating systems.
I don't know which high school you went to but I don't know of any high school that teaches economics. The earliest I've ever heard it taught was tertiary education (aka university).
The wonderful thing about definitions is that there are so many to choose from. For example, another (IMO better) definition is:
So my book says that competition is inherently a part of capitalism. You seperated the two as distinct things. I say that competition is part of capitalism and cannot be seperated.
I've no issue with 13 year old daughters who want to listen to Britney or 48 year old mothers who buy it for them. People can listen to whatever they damn well want to. I have an issue with the RIAA setting the price. If capitalism was allowed to operate then there would be multiple sources for Britney CDs and the market should set the price. But there is only one vendor for Britney (RIAA member, Jive Records). They set the price because they're the only supplier of Britney's recordings.
It doesn't need to be 100% ready. It just needs to be "good enough".
Was DOS 100% ready? Hell no. Was Windows 100% ready? Definitely not. At the risk of angering the MacOS X fanatics (who are even worse than Linux fanatics for outright blinkerism) even MacOS X isn't 100% ready.
Nothing is ever 100% ready. Nothing is perfect. The trick is to know when it's good enough. Linux is good enough for desktops just like it was good enough for SMB servers about 5 years ago. Linux wasn't a 100% server platform. Heck, it wasn't a 95% server platform. Solaris and AIX kicked its arse sixteen ways from Sunday. But it was good enough and Linux has a huge presence in the SMB server market now.
Linux most definitely wasn't good enough for desktops 5 years ago. The only reasonable word processor was Applixware (for optimistic definitions of reasonable) but it cost too much. Linux _is_ good enough these days for the business desktop market. I still think it's not quite ready for the home market, but I think the home market is dead anyway. But that's an argument for another day.
Yay! And MacOS only recently got preeemptive multitasking and memory protection. So they're only 6 years behind every other major PC operating system in something so basic. Yay!
Or, more realistically, an operating system isn't entirely valued by any single feature.
These people with legitimate grievances are writing on /. as opposed to, oh I don't know, using that Report Bug feature that the article mentioned.
As of the time I read their comments, they'd been moderated Informative, Insightful and Interesting. I don't see any Flamebait moderation on their grievances.
At least two responses were along the lines of "I tried what you described and it does not fail in the way you claimed". Casts serious doubt on the accuracy of the grievance.
Linux is running on my desktop now and it has been for _more_ than a decade. Remember, DOS was suitable for the desktop too. GUIs don't have to be perfect, or even exist, for the desktop to be ready.
That's not capitalism. Capitalism is where they charge $2.99, you don't like it, so you buy from SOMEBODY ELSE at a LOWER PRICE. That process continues until it's impossible to produce the song any cheaper.
They've been selling at 99c for ages. Now they are discussing a unilateral hike of 200%. That should be your first warning sign that capitalism is not working here! Where are the other online vendors selling the same songs at 50c? Or the same songs at 10c? If 10c is unrealistic (maybe it is but I suspect it isn't) then THE MARKET will find the actual sustainable pricepoint. The very second you hear that the RIAA is deciding the "sustainable" pricepoint instead of the market is the very same second you should have realised this is not capitalism. This is a cartel.
If capitalism was working then the prices would have dropped for music. That's how it works in every other industry. Company A makes steel bars for $1/bar at 10% profit. Company B thinks 5% profit is sufficient and sells bars for 99c/bar. Company A decreases their production costs (perhaps by innovating new techniques) and sells bars for 95c/bar. THAT is capitalism. It's using THE MARKET to drive innovation, reduce costs, self-regulate the quantity of production, while still producing the cheapest goods.
In the music industry the prices have gone up and up and up. Even faster than inflation. While production costs have gone down - a music studio and CD production facility can be built in your spare bedroom for under $10k these days, compared to $10s of millions only 2 decades ago - the CD prices have not dropped. Why? Because this isn't capitalism! Production costs are down, yet prices are up. Market is flooded with alternatives, yet prices are up. Look at the big picture. It's NOT CAPITALISM.
Britney Spears _is_ crap music. She can't play a musical instrument. She can't sing (ever heard her warble without the voice machine to fix up all her vocal inadequacies). The lyrics and melodies are very lame, even for teenage pop music.
But you're right, she does sell millions. Why? It's pretty obvious why. She's gorgeous, she's young, and she dances suggestively. I've just had the misfortune to see her latest video clip. She plays an aeroplane stewardess who has sex with all the passengers! Then she slinks around "naked" (actually wearing a flesh toned lycra body suit). She's appealing to the raging hormones in every teenage boy, and the image-obsessed teenage girls who want to mimic her every move.
What that's saying is that it _is_ crap music but it is also a brilliant package. People buy Britney for the _whole package_. The dancing. The video clips. The bubbly "How I Do My Makeup" articles in Teen Dream Magazine (or whatever they call it these days). If you took away the video clips and the posters and the magazines and the _idolism_, how long do you think Britney would last? My guess is, she would never have had any attention in the first place.
Well isn't that interesting. You've lumped in RATM with those other two bands. Now I don't actually like Incubus or Limp Bizkit, though I do respect them because they play their own instruments and write their own songs (a rarity these days). But RATM is different. They had a huge fanbase well before they ever got their first MTV music clip. People turned up to their gigs because of their lyrics, their stage presence, and to hear the music. Because let's face it, not even a mother could love those faces. They're ugly bastards.
Riddle me this. How many pubs, clubs or dance halls did Britney play in before she became an overnight sensation? My measure of a band is, if they had a paying audience before they were famous then they're probably worth hearing. If the band members never met each other until the marketting machine began then I smell a rat.
By the same reasoning, you mightn't like Metallica, but there's no denying that they were extremely popular even before the RIAA got their hooks in. When they were playing pubs and small gigs they were receiving rave reviews from the fans. Their music was good, well before the video clips and the multi-million stage shows and the merchandising. It can be argued that they've turned shit in the past few years, though I think St Anger is a long overdue step in the right direction.
To quickly finish this off, I get mightily tired of the "music is all subjective" argument. I know you weaseled out of that with "tastes in music" but I'm going to rant towards empty space. Music is both subjective and objective. An untalented person who sings off-key is objectively a poor singer. It doesn't matter if you like or dislike the genre or the song or the person's face; you can still measure the quality of their singing.
100Mbps shouldn't have bogged down any modern computer. A lowly Pentium-100 can flood a 100Mbps ethernet interface. Hard disks are good for at least 20MBps (160Mbps) even in laptops. Your CPU is plenty adequate for realtime SSH encryption (3DES?).
I know this will sound like a copout, but I suspect you have a driver problem. Possible culprits:
A 2.6 kernel will give you better interactive response but 2.4 shouldn't have felt unwieldy in the first place. I suspect something else is wrong. Upgrading to 2.6 might fix the actual problem though (newer drivers, etc).
It's frustrating that it doesn't work out of the box and you have to do this. If you buy a laptop preinstalled with Linux (lots of companies now doing this) then the vendor will do all the tweaks for you. Because you've installed your own OS you're responsible for doing the tweaks. More work for you.
What's so beautiful about the Macintosh OS? It's BSD combined with Mach. It's not that spectacular. It's definitely not cutting edge. It's just a UNIX clone.
If you're talking about the GUI, well, that just becomes a matter of personal preference. I know this might be hard to believe, but some of us prefer Linux.
Not all of us are so easily impressed by flashing lights and shiny things.
64-bit applications, for starters.
Presumably people who want to run certain Linux applications on the G5 processor.
Why was this a question? Isn't the answer pretty obvious.
I have no problem paying for quality products, which is why I purchase Linux distributions.
I will pay _more_ for Free Software.
Yeah, but the counter argument is that I like modern music. And I like my parents' music. And I like my grandparents' music. Each generation has had great music. Looking at my own CD collection (600+ and that's pressed silver CDs bought legit from the store, not burns) about 50% was produced in the last decade.
My tastes are eclectic. A short sample of music that I like: Prodigy, Roxy Music, Ravel, Fear Factory, Satriani, Prince, Groove Armada, Queens of the Stone Age, Tracy Chapman, Daft Punk, Led Zeppelin, Robert Johnson, Megadeth, Dave Brubeck, Count Basie, Aphex Twin, Beastie Boys, Chemical Brothers, Propellerheads, Ween, Robert Miles, Underworld, Oscar Peterson, Faith No More, Cure, Rammstein, New Order.
That's just my current playlist. But how many songs do I like in the current top-100? I think 4 and The Darkness counts for 2 of those. It's not that I don't like modern music - that short sample list up above should prove that - but rather that I don't like the current top-100. In fact, I have never liked the top-100 (I started listening in the early 80s). Oh sure, sometimes there is a song I like, but 95% of it sucks.
But even though 95% of the top-100 for the past 20 years has sucked, I've noticed that I like more than 50% of the music on the top-100 from the 60s and 70s. That was before I was even born! So I think the top-100 really has declined in recent years. I can't accept that personal tastes alone could account for such a dramatic decline.
The "you're too old" argument seems to be used often (and for every generation, which is a point in its favour) but I don't buy. I say the way to settle the argument is to look at the top-100 lists from the past 50 years and evaluate these criteria:
I've not done the figures on anything other than a casual (superficial) level but it's my impression that today's top-100 is dominated by gorgeous young people, wearing very few clothes, who can sing and dance but not play a musical instrument, and they're singing covers of older songs. There are _rare_ exceptions to the rule.
And the interesting thing is that it's not a recent phenomenon. Looking at the charts, I see it started in the early 80s. That ties in very nicely with music videos. Hrm.
That's not the same thing as saying that all modern music is like that. Just that the top-100 is like that. Go back 50 years and you had ugly people singing _and_playing_ original stuff. Now we get anonymous backing bands and choreographed dance troupes with gyrating bikini babes to add scenery. Pop quiz: who is Britney Spear's lead guitarist? I bet even Britney's fans don't know.
The interesting thing is that even though the RIAA only promotes pretty people - for example, Christina in 5 square inches of cloth, and 50-cent with his shirt off (again) - the music fans aren't that shallow. American Idol is mindless drek but it's interesting to see who wins. The Australian Idol is a homely looking chubby guy with bad hair (and he beat the handsome "stud"). The World Idol is an ugly man with bad teeth. The Canadian Idol is a geek in glasses. The American Idol is a fat bastard. But they could all sing. There's no denying that there was talent in them all. Appearance and pretty bodies isn't the #1 concern for the audience. So why do the top-100 video clips look like an episode of Baywatch?
Fortunately there's plenty of good music out there. It's just no longer on the top-100 (or, sadly, on the radio). I think the RIAA figured out that sexy bodies sells better, especially when the target audience is sexually repressed Americans, so they stopped caring about talent and started looking at the package it came in.
Maybe video really did kill the radio star.
Although maybe Carl Sagan will spin so fast in his grave it will cause the Earth to shift orbit.
I'm a huge fan of Satriani and his artistic qualities are not limited to his technical ability. Flying in a Blue Dream is a beautiful song, easily on par with anything from John Williams (Sky). Strange Beautiful Music shows that Satriani knows more about music than just playing the guitar; he deftly branched out into percussive and progressive beats. Sure, Satriani has oodles of technical ability, so his songs demonstrate that, but I wouldn't listen to his music if all he could do was play the guitar very well. His song-writing ability makes his music enjoyable. Isn't that the most important artistic ability of them all?
The mini doesn't seem absurd to me. 4GB is more space than I want. The colours look cool. The smaller form factor is a bonus.
Then maybe Microsoft should tell Apple to stop showing off Microsoft's new concepts and ideas.
You're not the only one. I think this is one of Sun's smartest moves in years. If they had continued through the courts this might have taken another 3-4 years. Any "winnings" would have been in the same ballpark of $2 billion. There was no sense in continuing the lawsuit.
The technology exchange, however, is even more important than the money. Sun is getting creamed in the server market. Why? Not the cost: hardware is cheap compared to people. Not the software: it's old but it works and is dependable. It's the interoperability. Sun servers just don't play nice with Windows. With Windows dominating the desktop market, Sun was losing the server market to clearly inferior Windows servers.
Sun has a two pronged strategy now. Deliver Solaris-friendly desktops (aka Sun Java Desktop) and improve their Java/Solaris support for Windows desktops. Sensible. Intelligent. Probably the only way Sun will survive the next decade.
The $2 billion is a token though. It's a lot of money but it doesn't sustain a company like Sun for a decade. The $2 billion was a way for Microsoft to compensate Sun without losing face. The technology exchange was the big thing here.
Dude, you just listed three competing Windows toolkits (DirectX, MFC and .NET) and then you say there aren't multiple major toolkits competing with each other? Read what you write before you hit submit!
In fact, it's not even as few as just three. At a bare minimum you've got .NET, Java, Win32, MFC, Win16, Forms, and OWL. Yes, there are still plenty of Win16 apps out there being maintained. If you want to consider enterprise app toolkits you've got PowerBuilder and other 4-GENs. I'm not even going to list all the free toolkits (XUL, QT, GTK, Wx) because I'll swamp you with 100s of names.
If your only argument is "but MFC and .NET are the most popular" then I'll counter with "GNOME and KDE are the most popular". You don't have an argument, and you know it.
Btw, if I was being entirely pedantic I'd say that MFC and .NET aren't actually toolkits. They are foundation classes and frameworks. But you brought this terminology to the table so you can live with it.
I didn't bring it up. Take your grievances to the person who started this thread.
The only silly thing here is that you think multiple toolkits exist because the developers are anti-Microsoft. Haven't you noticed that there are multiple toolkits on every platform? Open your eyes, man!
Actually, isn't it great that you can read kernel changelogs. You're informed. You can make an educated decision that, for your purposes, 2.6 isn't up to your standards for production usage. Aren't you happier that you're not being kept in the dark?
More information is always good. I'm happier when the vendor is honest and upfront with me, rather than letting me discover bugs on my own. Linux is the most transparent development I've ever seen. It gives me great confidence in the product; I'm certain that any serious bugs will be announced loudly and widely. That's something I'm not so sure will happen with closed-source products.
Giggle. Yes, I suppose that $500 PC really is cheaper when your company purchases $2500 worth of MSDN subscription for you per year.
Now, your average user, I suppose your company buys them an MSDN subscription as well. No? Well then you realise you're an exception.
Good for you. I'm the same. I feel no need to pay for software when Linux provides 90% of the functionality at 0% of the price. But you do realise we're both in the minority. Most users run Windows. Most users don't pay for it. Most users don't have a prepaid MSDN subscription. So why don't we stick to most users, because you're a very exceptional person.
You're living in denial. The average home user asks their teenage son/daughter to get the software for the new computer. You're off your rocker if you think most people are legit.
Damn, dude. Who are you talking to? I didn't say anything about Apple's market share. That "5%" figure is yours, not mine. Apple Zealot? My desktop has been Linux since 1992.
I don't see why you think ~/.appname is OK but ~/.gconf/apps/appname is harder.
No, it doesn't. Try it and you'll see. Gconf is smarter than that.
Once again, why is it harder? Have you ever created a gconf file from scratch? How hard was it? What were the hard parts?
I don't mind discussing the theory, but at some point you have to back up the theory with the facts. As a person with 15 years (no shit) UNIX experience, I think gconf is a huge step in the right direction. I'm personally sick to death of rc-files. They're always different formats, and all the parsers have their own unique bugs.
You don't have to use libgnome to use gconf. The library was purposefully kept separate. In fact, gconf is an ideal way to add modern conf control to your application. Rather than reinvent the wheel (probably by writing your own parser, with its own unique bugs) just use gconf. The library is well debugged and fast.
And gconf doesn't detract from that. It's up to the apps to have reasonable defaults. Gconf doesn't automatically make applications choose unreasonable defaults! You can still override the defaults with a simple file. But the file is self-documented and easily verified for syntax correctness (just pass the file through any XML verifier). All modern text editors (emacs/vim) have XML highlighting. Why are you opposed to it? The reasons you've given so far seem flimsy.
Having programmed in the Windows environment, I know there are multiple competing widget sets there too, so I know your argument is fundamentally wrong.
But even assuming you're right. Assuming that Linux will never "breakthrough" without a single unified widget set. A single desktop. My question is... so what?
Does it matter? Who cares if Linux never gets bigger than this? It rocks pretty mightily right now. I'm really happy with it. I got started with Linux so I could get UNIX@home. Ok, admittedly I already had UNIX@home (Interactive) but Linux was simply better. So I was happy back in 1992.
Everything since then has been gravy. If you had told me in 1997 that I'd be playing 3D games and using state-of-the-art word processors on Linux, I'd have laughed at you and gone back to nethack and LaTeX. But now I'm sitting in front of a GNOME 2.6 desktop typing into a modern web browser. I'm in utter disbelief that it's this good. I would have been happy with command line UNIX! This is way more than I ever expected.
So does it matter if Linux doesn't take over 100% of the market? I say it doesn't matter. I think it will happen anyway, but I won't cry if it doesn't. Linux rocks already. I'm content. Aren't you?