they want to be in *control* of their computing environment.
When this is done, they will be able to take advantage of any Linux or Unix based application easily. Why? Because their desktops are open ones, not closed.
No amount of money spent on the Microsoft deal will allow them the level of choice they have now.
That is going to be worth something more than the few million extra euros they spent today.
I currently use Mandrake Linux. I recently added a SCSI card and disk to my system running an IDE drive. Here is what I did:
1. Go to Fry's and buy el-cheapo SCSI card. The only one they had under $30.00 indicated Linux support on the box. All other operating systems required drivers found on the CD inside. Hmmm....
2. Install Card. This was basically pick a slot and insert card correctly.
3. Boot machine.
4. Make a couple of new directories using the file manager.
4. Run DiskDrake.
5. Choose new drive with the nice little drive tab. Create new partition or partitions with a couple of clicks. and tell the system where to put them in the filesystem.
This dialog is nice, it shows what parts of your disks are in use, or not. Finding your new disk and defining how you want to use it is pretty easy.
Getting to this point required that I type nothing. Also at this point, I have a lot of interesting choices that used to be harder a couple years ago, but now are just as easy as anything else. (Journaled filesystems, win32 compatable filesystems, and the usual Linux filesystems. --All of these are point and drool.
The defaults are sane as well. If I just want to use the disk, I can just go with the defaults and choose a target directory and be done.
6. Since I know what I am doing, mount -a. If I were a newbie, I could always just reboot as well.
Done.
It is clearly possible today to run Linux with very little effort. I could have done all the steps above manually, but I did not have to.
I also would have likely made some goofy mistake with a comma or something just like you did.
For someone getting started, Mandrake has done a good job of putting those options they need most where they will stumble into them. --Just like microsoft does.
The good part is all the power still exists under the hood when the time comes...
I agree with this. Anyone that says X is slow, should sit in front of an older SGI sometime.
4Dwm is snappy --even on a 150Mhz machine.
IRIX is a nice place to work. Now that I am getting more into Linux, the little differences annoy me. SGI does do its part though. freeware.sgi.com is a very nice resource. Get any old SGI, point it there and download most of the good OSS built and ready for your machine.
Gator *must* be doing something illegal with their deceptive installation requests.
I know better, but my kids don't. Keeping spyware of the win2k machine is impossible. I know they could be surfing with Linux. They will be soon enough; however, the problem still exists and running Linux is not going to fix it for everyone anytime soon.
Their misleading and deceptive methods are no better than those employed by those using other media to scam and exploit people.
People have a right to clear and honest accounting for what software does, and is going to do on their machine *before* it is loaded.
They also need to be assured that a request for removal is honored as well.
The decision helps to strengthen and define the rights people have when viewing content. Not what the litigants had in mind, but good anyway.
There is no better advocacy for OSS than this sort of thing. Linux+Moz+Konq makes for a very peaceful and enjoyable web experience. The Internet is downright hostile toward win32 users right now.
Companies like Gator do nothing but help that along.
I have purchased exactly one can of SPAM. It's the one sitting in the cube to represent all of the SPAM we get. Sometimes we pass it around, use it as a paperweight, or make jokes.
Nobody really expects to actually eat the SPAM --ewwww.
value proposition and its relationship to the judgement at hand.
These companies are making their programming appear to be worth far more than it really is.
I used to subscribe to one of these services. Got the dish, wired my home, basically did the whole bit. Picture was nice, but there was a problem
150 channels plus premium and STILL NOT A FSCKING THING ON! At $60 - $80 per month US, this was not ok. Every time the value of the bundle drops, they either add more channels, split those they have and add more commercials, or manupulate the bundles in ways that drive more revenue (read require more of our money for the same content) their way.
Went to Radio Shack and got a nice antenna. Funny thing about antennas. They cost about the same as they did years ago and still come in the same boxes. How many different cable / sat devices have to needed to own over the years. Is that cost worth what you received?
Now, I purchase DVD media with the money I used to spend on subscription TV. They must all compete on content value or they don't get my dollars. I don't think most people get as much out of the system as they think. It is packaged and promoted in a way that looks like a good value but really isn't.
I purchase a very small percentage of what is produced each year. I just might buy more if they worked harder to provide it. I might even double what I spend now if what I want is easy to get, but its not. To me, this means that most of what we are getting via subscription programming is almost worthless.
If it were really that good, I would pay, but it's not.
These companies see *everyone* as a customer, yet do not have to compete on almost any basis for their wares. Subscription programming used to be a big deal when it was started. Many folks could not get any decent broadcast content; others wanted the premium content and were willing to pay. Early systems required infrastructure, equipment and other things that justify the price.
Congress is wanting to basically kill broadcast TV so they can hand even more money to these companies via the spectrum; at our expense no less.
So, where is the competition? It's not like we have a lot of satellite providers. Kind of hard to put up that many units. Cable is granted a monopoly. Lets say you manage to sell me on competition; that it exists, not the concept. How can we evaluate the worth of the programming?
They do not sell per channel, or per use (other than insane PPV.) What if I want to purchase some programming from them. Maybe Sci-fi, Food Network, HBO, Showtime and a couple of others I see value in. Can I pay 29.95? No. Why not?
Do we know how much we have paid for infrastructure? What are the costs there? Is it being built out or maintained? How long do they get to keep what is in the public interests?
The whole thing looks to be nothing more than a shell game. At least when I purchase media, I have some understanding of its true cost and some understanding of its relative worth.
I can know this worth because there are many suppliers, I know because I can resell the content to others and see what they are willing to pay. Try taking a lame DVD to a swap shop. They will almost make you pay to get them to take it off your hands.
I can produce these things myself and understand the costs from that angle if I want. (Though they *really* don't want that to happen --and for good reason.)
In short, any number these guys propose is simply an indication of their wants, not their needs and that is a problem in the judgement of this case.
I can clearly understand the crime of selling decryption devices for paid programming services. I have problems with the nature of the services, but the crime is clear. I don't understand the result of the information crime however. I just cannot assess the value of the damage to the public and the sat companies. Any court that takes their numbers on their merits is wrong on moral
We continue to develop new skills and adapt to the task at hand throughout life. It is this ability to adapt that makes age based decisions poor ones.
What people need to be looking for are those who show the ability to favorably adapt to their needs. Age has a lot to do with this, but it is not the core problem in my view.
The problem is simple: They are looking for people they can own.
Young people are attractive because they might be single, they can work long hours and are not sick as much. (Though the weekend bash has the potential to consume as many days as being truly sick does:) They cost less. They are flexible and they do learn fast in general. All of these can be found in older people as well.
What is the difference?
Younger people are naive and they *need* a good start. I don't mean to offend anyone under 30, but you are likely to be more willing to be owned to a higher degree than someone older will because you need the chance to grow and gain experience.
Personally, I have been grappling with this for a while now. (Just turned 35 --damn...)
My approach to work has not changed since I was 20. Interestingly, I am better at it now because of my experience. The chance to actually contribute is higher because I bring more to the table. But there is a growing problem from my point of view.
Terms of employment.
Employers want control and high productivity at the lowest cost. Can't blame them, that is how business is done at its basic level. They want such a high degree of control it is almost silly.
Sometimes, I think many companies are just looking to own everything they can. Get your 20 something excited and make sure your contract ownes everything he does. --Profit!
I was lucky, I have always worked for people who did not do this. They wanted to know who I was and what I could bring to the table. Ideas abound, but ownership of them is a simple question of business intent. I cannot compete with my employer, but am able to honestly discuss the issue whenever new thoughts come up with no worries. We don't need a contract because we have an honest working relationship.
Both parties are ethical and it works well.
Now I look around and am more than a little disgusted. Everyone wants a non-compete. The temps treat you like a cheap whore. Pimps --all of them!
Age discrimination? Sure. Younger people are more likely to be naive in some key way that makes them easier to control. That makes them attractive. It has little to to with ability to learn or cost or potential.
It is all about being owned. The information age has brought the ability to compete down to each one of us. The industry is responding with law and patents and god knows what else to maintain their control.
Anti company? Sure if yours is doing these things. Extremist? Maybe, but it is hard to deny what I spent many years watching happen.
Different view? Bring it on! A somewhat jaded professional who should not yet be jaded would appreciate a different point of view...
Presentation is a big part of communication. Just look at your average geek. They know more than most, but who gets listened to?
Those that put on a good show. (Suits)
What actually bothered me was the fact that my papers looked damn good from that point on. (After ditching cursive that is.) I even used bold and such by pressing harder and softer on the pencil or pen.
You would think it would be obvious that some good learning happened there, but it sure wasn't.
Isn't that the point of going to school in the first place.
Sheesh. --Glad I was not the only one.
BTW, your theory about writing slower than you think has merit. For me, typing is still a problem in this area. Ideas seem to come all at once. Hard to capture the vision when you have to grind it out a character at a time.
Ever tried a simple voice recorder? Works wonders for me when I need to get stuff down fast.
About the 6th grade, I was getting bad marks because my papers were hard to read. This angered me, so I decided to print even though the educators at the time recommended remedial writing classes. (got into a lot of trouble over that)
The school made a *big* deal about this. Said, I would not be able to write a check, sign legal documents and other things. They said my writing would be slower. Nothing but FUD directed at preserving something that does not need to be preserved.
I did not agree and decided to do a little research. Found out that we didn't need cursive then. We sure as heck don't need it now.
The appearance of ones handwriting has a lot to do with their internal wiring. How we all do it depends on how we are built.
I spent the better part of that year learning about handwriting in all its forms in my spare time. Looked at writing from famous people, read their bio. Looked at different styles and related the use of same by different types of people. Looked at documents and fonts. The proper use of these can convey many things not directly contained in the actual words used.
I reached the following conclusions.
- There is no need to handwrite anything using a cursive script. --Nothing.
- You can extend this to the lower-case characters as well. Not needed for anything.
- Knowing these two things makes learning the art of writing a lot easier. (I had not yet used a computer or typewriter at the time.) Less hassle. The effect on me was a better ability to focus on what it is that I was writing instead of how it was written.
For a young child trying to understand the use of language, this is huge. Good educators should be encouraging this instead of clinging to the old ways. Why spend years working hard at a manual skill that one is not well adapted to? That time could be used to better the use of language and structure.
- Trying to make someone write in perfect copy book style who is not pre-disposed to doing so is a direct assult on their being. Could that assult do harm to a young person who might otherwise enjoy the art of writing?
It almost did exactly that for me.
So, the end result?
Some yelling, punishment and poor marks for another 6 months until I was able to better articulate what made me angry about cursive writing. My parents were told I would have problems later in life. I was told, I was not working to get a good education. Bullshit. I could tell them more about writing then they could tell me!
I never wrote that way again and am *way* better for it. Humans tend to evolve. We are seeing this now. Cursive will never die because there are people out there that are well adapted to its use.
Schools will eventually understand the things I learned long ago. They will learn to classify and improve their students writing strengths and provide them with good tools to improve them rather than force everyone into a style of expression that does not fit them.
You are not typical among music listeners. Given the time you spend in front of your machine, streaming from a large catalog seems to be a great solution.
Personally, I would do just that if I were in your position.
They get some money per tune. They make the music easier to get than with downloading. You can even download a couple times and not get charged so your money is not wasted.
The DRM approach is foolish. No matter what, people will be able to move the music outside the DRM. Why not get enough cash up front for the whole thing to be worth it?
That is exactly how the current CD model works now and they have made plenty of money doing it.
Streaming via monthly subscription sort of works, if you don't mind sitting at your computer to listen. The Satellite and Cable people have been doing this for a while now and people like it. Think about those systems a bit. The music can still move, but it takes a bit of work to do that. Plus there is some value in their rotating playlists. It would take quite a while to reproduce a couple days of their service in a way that makes sense. So, people pay.
Subscription DRM where you basically give up all your rights to your own damn hardware are not going to fly when perfectly workable business models exist that work with what we have now.
Seems to me Apple has understood something most companies don't. Though, they could save some time and read Slash. Most of us have this down cold for a few years now... Heh.
BTW: I purchase DVD media instead of rent and or pay per view because I do want to have some ownership of the bits. Costs more that way, but I find it very worth it.
I do these things because I want to be in control. There is nothing worse than a stupid situation that you *know* you could get out of with some basic skill...
This is one of the greatest attractions OSS currently holds for me. I know that anything I learn to do with OSS tools, I will continue to be able to do for a long time without getting permission, paying fees, or dealing with silly restrictions that only benefit companies who have enough already.
On a personal level it makes sense as well. Taking the heat for something you are not directly responsible for sucks.
Anyone willing to stick their neck out in order to champion some proprietary software is just gambling with their career. You think they really care?
They don't, it is just about revenue and nothing more. If your problem is shared by many you can be safe in the knowing it will be addressed. You can even look like you are on the ball while advocating your marginal 'standard' in the box thinking. The real truth is you are more lucky if you stick with the crowd.
This attitude promotes strong in the box thinking combined with a healthy and well refined finger pointing and blame shifing skills. Innovation? forget it. Competitive advantage comes down to how hard you can make your people work and how big of a ball buster you have for a purchasing agent. Boy, that sure makes me want to come to work early... (cough)
I once worked in a shop where one of my job duties was to make sure that what I made was correct and within stated tolerances. This shop had a quality assurance department to help make sure this was true, but it was expected that you had tools, knowledge of the machine and the ability to read and understand the specifications because the quality people sometimes made mistakes too.
Well, one batch of rather large and expensive parts was found to be defective one day. It was right after I had complted my stage of the work.
I was found to be at fault for not making sure the guy before me did his job right. I was pissed at first, but thought about it and it made some good sense. Afterall I had the information and tools to evaluate the work done before --why not?
I made damn sure afterword to have the skill and information needed to evaluate both my own work and those before me just to make sure I had the ability to deal with what I was responsible for.
So take this ethic in the context of systems being sold and used today. It's scary.
On one hand you have to trust the software is designed well and does what it says because you cannot actually see the work of others before you --even if you have the skill.
On the other, the company that pays your way wants you to be held accountable for what those same systems do. You did ok the purchase right?
The creator of the software takes almost all of your rights through the legal wrapper that comes with the package while you take the heat and have to deal with the issues.
So you can evaluate basically nothing, must pay blood money for fixes and updates out of your control and take the heat for the fuckups of one of the most cash rich companies around?
At least with Open Source you can examine what you are getting. You can learn how it works and why it does so. You can implement how you see fit and act in a responsible manner.
I was called the fool for hosing up so many parts. I was asked why I worked so hard at doing the right job on parts that were wrong.
Today when I see all the win32 problems I shake my head and wonder at the foolishness of it all. Who in their right mind would actually step up and take that kind of responsibility understanding that they are more or less powerless to act on it?
I guess ignorance is really an excuse in IT. Can't find any other reason for it.
Franky, the whole mess makes me sick.
So, back to the skills. I like knowing that I can go into the woods and make fire, shelter weapons do just fine. Sometimes th
Sorry for the long parent post. (I should have been working also...)
"They wont accept no restrictions as that would likely stop them selling you the same music 10 times, and that is really what they want to do."
In this we agree completely.
"I argree here but also disagree! DVD's yes (space is still an issue here) CDs no. I do not use them, on the rare occasions that I buy them they are ripped and they shoved in storage."
I believe this answers your own question really. The CD is almost worthless because technology has all but eclipsed it. Since it hasn't (yet) with the content on a DVD, that DVD is still worth something.
"And surely another area where CDs are overpriced. The cost of producing the soundtrack is surely part of ther movie cost and thus selling the soundtrack could surely be done at a much lower cost?"
I was actually talking about just running the DVD only just paying attention to the audio. Just listen to the movie --not the produced musical soundtrack. Agreed though about the soundtrack.;-)
Re:The article really did not
on
RIAA vs The Economy
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"Music has a much higher replay value that that of a Movie. "
I agree for the most part. I still listen to my first CD often. Movies do have some repeat value, it is just different from the CD in some ways.
For me the issue of music price has been a sore one for a while. New vinyl was about $8.00 Singles were $3-4.00. The price of a CD has never dropped even though the medium promised great cost reductions. That first CD was $21.99. In 1985 dollars that was a lot. --It still has the sticker on it! Today those dollars are worth less, but the minor drop in price does not reflect the cost savings originally promised. Dire Straits "Love Over Gold" is still $21.99 last I checked this year. WTF?!?
I payed the price then because of the long life and high sonic impact that only got better with new equipment. I will still pay now, if the music is good --for the very reasons you indicate.
Good music does have a high replay value indeed compared to movies.
The trick is getting the good music into my hands where I have a chance to purchase it easily.
A good album is worth as much as a good movie to many people, me included. In some cases it is worth more. So why pay so much for a movie, or why not accept the value of the album at face value?
I accept the higher cost of DVD due to the technical nature of the content. Those visuals did not come cheap. I understand that and am willing to let the studios make their money. At least they do a good job of letting me know what they have and what its value is.
I may not watch movies as often as I do listen to music, but I do re-watch them from time to time. Sometimes a good story is worth hearing again just as a good piece of music is.
They are both stories if done right that evoke emotion and creative, sometimes profound thought. When something strikes me that way, I tend to want to capture it for later. Often the reason is that I want to see if the changing times combined with the same presentation will evoke something different. Good movies and music both work this way though music does it more easily.
You know, the movie companies know this to some degree, or at least are allowing for it. If I were to purchase 'Independance day' it would have to be at rock bottom dollar. Though the technical part of what I am getting is more than I get with music, the replay value is quite a bit lower. Consider another movie like 'Brazil'. I will watch that one more times because the story is complex and interesting. Given the times, it also is more relevant. It also costs more which leads me to believe the movie people understand some of this and want people to pay for it.
The music people don't get this to the same degree. Shallow Bubble gum pop boy bands cost the same as well thought out albums with good stories and continuity. Why is that? (Britney vs Dire Straits "love over gold" or Saga "Worlds apart" (Your tastes may vary, but you get the idea.)
As for background, movie soundtracks are sometimes very interesting. Some movie styles lend themselves to audio only listening. Maybe that is just a matter of perception or habit on my part, but I can't be the only one.
DVD also compares favorably to subscription television as a CD compares to XM or digital music delivered via cable. I have found that a few good media purchases each month cost a little more than quality subscription programming. The value is higher however. I can loan the movies out (though I want to loan copies), watch interesting ones when I want, and occupy the kids with quality movies when they want to just watch something. Same goes for music.
You can get a lot of use value out of either DVD or CD media provided you are given the choices that enable that to happen for your tastes.
The movie companies are basically doing that where the music people are failing.
Finally, I want to own the CD and or DVD. I would much rather put my dollars toward something I have an interest
tell me much. Stats are stats are stats. I did enjoy reading it, but feel the answer is elsewhere.
CD sales have dropped for me recently and this is why.
DVD movies now occupy that under $20 knee jerk purchase price point. Everyone knows a DVD is better than a CD in general, so how come the CD is still so expensive? I don't think twice about $16.99 for a DVD, that's a nice deal really. So what does that do for the same pricing on the CD? All I know is that $16.99 number on a CD is pretty unattractive in general these days. To pay as much for a CD as I do a movie, it had better be a damn good CD.
The current buttload of music being pimped via the usual Clear Channel right now is garbage plain and simple. Sure, there is plenty of good music, but it sure is hard to find, unless...
One can sample! Maybe that $16.99 is worth it. (It sometimes is.) I am willing to look and consider the purchase, but nobody is showing. Wonder why they don't sell product? Duh!
Currently I don't download anything. Thought I would make the change and see what happens with me and my family.
I must say that without P2P, I am missing out. All the radio stations here play the same (crap) music. There is little to get excited about. I know there is a lot of music that I would be interested in buying, but I can't find it easily!
P2P is costing the RIAA something in the young market though. If they (kids)have the money they will buy the CD, even if they have downloaded it. But if they have a (better) choice they won't. These days there are more good choices, so kids buy fewer CD's because they know they can get the music somehow later, but can't easily repeat a spur of the moment movie trip. So, the RIAA is losing sales here in my view. In a twisted sort of way, they might be right with the younger crowd. They can squeeze more out of their latest boy band if there is less P2P, but at what cost?
On second hand they might already be hosed. When I shut down the P2P, my kids ended up doing the same thing I did. They go to school, talk about the music, find out who has it and why, and copy it if it fits.
There are more CDRs laying around the house now than when P2P was running.
Now, I do get excited about movies and guess what? That is what I buy. The movie market appeals to everyone at some level. There are several layers to the whole thing that make it easy to sell to those looking to buy that music just does not have today.
The RIAA is currently trying like hell to milk everything they can from the kids. (Remember the point earlier about cost?) Problem is that those same kids also have DVD, subscription TV, cell phone plans and other new things to worry about. With all those new choices offering different values, is it any wonder CD sales are not as attractive given their low value proposition in comparison?
Your average teenage girl can get a cell plan for the cost of many CD's that will provide way more bang for the buck than that CD will...
I think the RIAA is getting squeezed right out of their prime market because of these things and their own ignorance.
Now here I am sitting with my disposable income looking for something to buy. Does it take much of a stretch to see that I am going to buy something from those people willing to entertain my business?
Whatever problems the the movie companies have with digital are not getting in the way of moving product. They are showing me lots of pricing options, good content and good value across the board. I can easily find blockbusters along with interesting smaller films.
What do I get on the music side of things?
Shit.
The majority of the content is aimed at people half my age. I cannot realistically sample using the radio because they are all but owned by the big boys, so they mostly play the same things. Going into the music store to sample is a joke really. All they do is put the same tracks on the in-store boxes that I just got d
the less useful machine. I thought Bill was the leader in this area. Must we emulate everything?
The X window system is what makes a Linux machine multi-user. It also makes it useful as a multi-user machine at the same time.
The core of UNIX power comes from the multi-user philosophy. X was crafted with the same goals in mind. That is why they both have been around for such a long time.
Both of these things come at a small price; namely, a requirement for some basic literacy with regard to the system and how it works.
YOU CANNOT HAVE THE POWER WITHOUT PAYING THAT PRICE.
I did not spend the last 7 years learning these things only to have my environment dumbed down for the sake of those not willing to step up and actually learn something about the machines they say they need.
All of those folks wanting a frame-buffer only system really don't want multi-user systems --or at least don't want useful ones. Or, more likely, just flat don't know better.
As for those folks asking for X emulation, I ask this?
If the X window emulation does what X is supposed to wouldn't you have what you have with X right now plus added overhead? Why not consider using a toolkit to make the X development easier while not ruining the multi-user nature of Linux?
Win32 machines are multi-tasking machines. Sure, you can run processes as more than one user, even run applications on your machine as more than one user, but in the end, you still have only one desktop.
Many of the problems come from that one desktop and its close intergration with the rest of the OS. This is the same shit that Microsoft and Apple to a degree have been pushing all along. We don't need this.
For those that think we do, read again. WE DON'T.
Common arguments:
- The network display capability makes X slow.
Bullshit. The fastest graphics systems around have always used X. Want to see a sweet X server that does the network display thing nicely. Get any SGI IRIX machine and examine the X environment. 3D capable display, both in a window and full screen, on screen video in real time with sizeable windows, network applications, speed. All have been present for longer than the more capable win32 environments have existed. Local display requests do not go through the entire network stack. This combined with the excellence of UNIX and Linux network stacks make this a moot point anyway.
X is hard to configure.
Each year this is much less so. Soon it will also be a non issue. We have gone from hand tweaking our display to spin the CD and choose the type of display. Give it a bit more time and you will soon get all the little features you think you need as well. All without any sacrifice of the multi-user values that make Linux and X what they are; namely, better than everyone else.
Nobody needs all that extra capability.
Well, that is because most of them do not know what they are missing. We need to keep the power in the box by default; otherwise, we will end up running the same way others on more limited systems do now. Is that worth it?
X is old.
Well so is UNIX. Does that make it bad? No, if it were, it would be dead long before now.
This is long enough. If you actually want to see more take a look at my journal, there is plenty more in there for the reading.
To sum this up:
If you really don't understand what X and UNIX is about, just spare yourself and get a nice wintel PC and get it over with. Maybe split the middle and get an Apple. (I *like* Apple BTW, that's not the whole point here...)
If you want to actually take some control over your computing environment and have the ability to exercise choices, step up and shut up and start using X.
Slashdot Mirror
they want to be in *control* of their computing environment.
When this is done, they will be able to take advantage of any Linux or Unix based application easily. Why? Because their desktops are open ones, not closed.
No amount of money spent on the Microsoft deal will allow them the level of choice they have now.
That is going to be worth something more than the few million extra euros they spent today.
just bring the boxes back.
Popular demand is an easy problem to handle, it's just not the problem they have now.
Not a bad idea really. Perhaps, after knowing them a bit, dropping the occasionial contribution would do some good.
Interesting thought.
Wrote mine (Oregon) and found he was against this bill. Maybe the ones against, or at least neutral, might make enough noise to help this one go away.
I currently use Mandrake Linux. I recently added a SCSI card and disk to my system running an IDE drive. Here is what I did:
1. Go to Fry's and buy el-cheapo SCSI card. The only one they had under $30.00 indicated Linux support on the box. All other operating systems required drivers found on the CD inside. Hmmm....
2. Install Card. This was basically pick a slot and insert card correctly.
3. Boot machine.
4. Make a couple of new directories using the file manager.
4. Run DiskDrake.
5. Choose new drive with the nice little drive tab. Create new partition or partitions with a couple of clicks. and tell the system where to put them in the filesystem.
This dialog is nice, it shows what parts of your disks are in use, or not. Finding your new disk and defining how you want to use it is pretty easy.
Getting to this point required that I type nothing. Also at this point, I have a lot of interesting choices that used to be harder a couple years ago, but now are just as easy as anything else. (Journaled filesystems, win32 compatable filesystems, and the usual Linux filesystems. --All of these are point and drool.
The defaults are sane as well. If I just want to use the disk, I can just go with the defaults and choose a target directory and be done.
6. Since I know what I am doing, mount -a. If I were a newbie, I could always just reboot as well.
Done.
It is clearly possible today to run Linux with very little effort. I could have done all the steps above manually, but I did not have to.
I also would have likely made some goofy mistake with a comma or something just like you did.
For someone getting started, Mandrake has done a good job of putting those options they need most where they will stumble into them. --Just like microsoft does.
The good part is all the power still exists under the hood when the time comes...
I agree with this. Anyone that says X is slow, should sit in front of an older SGI sometime.
4Dwm is snappy --even on a 150Mhz machine.
IRIX is a nice place to work. Now that I am getting more into Linux, the little differences annoy me. SGI does do its part though. freeware.sgi.com is a very nice resource. Get any old SGI, point it there and download most of the good OSS built and ready for your machine.
Gator *must* be doing something illegal with their deceptive installation requests.
I know better, but my kids don't. Keeping spyware of the win2k machine is impossible. I know they could be surfing with Linux. They will be soon enough; however, the problem still exists and running Linux is not going to fix it for everyone anytime soon.
Their misleading and deceptive methods are no better than those employed by those using other media to scam and exploit people.
People have a right to clear and honest accounting for what software does, and is going to do on their machine *before* it is loaded.
They also need to be assured that a request for removal is honored as well.
The decision helps to strengthen and define the rights people have when viewing content. Not what the litigants had in mind, but good anyway.
There is no better advocacy for OSS than this sort of thing. Linux+Moz+Konq makes for a very peaceful and enjoyable web experience. The Internet is downright hostile toward win32 users right now.
Companies like Gator do nothing but help that along.
I have purchased exactly one can of SPAM. It's the one sitting in the cube to represent all of the SPAM we get. Sometimes we pass it around, use it as a paperweight, or make jokes.
Nobody really expects to actually eat the SPAM --ewwww.
value proposition and its relationship to the judgement at hand.
These companies are making their programming appear to be worth far more than it really is.
I used to subscribe to one of these services. Got the dish, wired my home, basically did the whole bit. Picture was nice, but there was a problem
150 channels plus premium and STILL NOT A FSCKING THING ON! At $60 - $80 per month US, this was not ok. Every time the value of the bundle drops, they either add more channels, split those they have and add more commercials, or manupulate the bundles in ways that drive more revenue (read require more of our money for the same content) their way.
Went to Radio Shack and got a nice antenna. Funny thing about antennas. They cost about the same as they did years ago and still come in the same boxes. How many different cable / sat devices have to needed to own over the years. Is that cost worth what you received?
Now, I purchase DVD media with the money I used to spend on subscription TV. They must all compete on content value or they don't get my dollars. I don't think most people get as much out of the system as they think. It is packaged and promoted in a way that looks like a good value but really isn't.
I purchase a very small percentage of what is produced each year. I just might buy more if they worked harder to provide it. I might even double what I spend now if what I want is easy to get, but its not. To me, this means that most of what we are getting via subscription programming is almost worthless.
If it were really that good, I would pay, but it's not.
These companies see *everyone* as a customer, yet do not have to compete on almost any basis for their wares. Subscription programming used to be a big deal when it was started. Many folks could not get any decent broadcast content; others wanted the premium content and were willing to pay. Early systems required infrastructure, equipment and other things that justify the price.
Congress is wanting to basically kill broadcast TV so they can hand even more money to these companies via the spectrum; at our expense no less.
So, where is the competition? It's not like we have a lot of satellite providers. Kind of hard to put up that many units. Cable is granted a monopoly. Lets say you manage to sell me on competition; that it exists, not the concept. How can we evaluate the worth of the programming?
They do not sell per channel, or per use (other than insane PPV.) What if I want to purchase some programming from them. Maybe Sci-fi, Food Network, HBO, Showtime and a couple of others I see value in. Can I pay 29.95? No. Why not?
Do we know how much we have paid for infrastructure? What are the costs there? Is it being built out or maintained? How long do they get to keep what is in the public interests?
The whole thing looks to be nothing more than a shell game. At least when I purchase media, I have some understanding of its true cost and some understanding of its relative worth.
I can know this worth because there are many suppliers, I know because I can resell the content to others and see what they are willing to pay. Try taking a lame DVD to a swap shop. They will almost make you pay to get them to take it off your hands.
I can produce these things myself and understand the costs from that angle if I want. (Though they *really* don't want that to happen --and for good reason.)
In short, any number these guys propose is simply an indication of their wants, not their needs and that is a problem in the judgement of this case.
I can clearly understand the crime of selling decryption devices for paid programming services. I have problems with the nature of the services, but the crime is clear. I don't understand the result of the information crime however. I just cannot assess the value of the damage to the public and the sat companies. Any court that takes their numbers on their merits is wrong on moral
but this is not a bad thing.
:) They cost less. They are flexible and they do learn fast in general. All of these can be found in older people as well.
We continue to develop new skills and adapt to the task at hand throughout life. It is this ability to adapt that makes age based decisions poor ones.
What people need to be looking for are those who show the ability to favorably adapt to their needs. Age has a lot to do with this, but it is not the core problem in my view.
The problem is simple: They are looking for people they can own.
Young people are attractive because they might be single, they can work long hours and are not sick as much. (Though the weekend bash has the potential to consume as many days as being truly sick does
What is the difference?
Younger people are naive and they *need* a good start. I don't mean to offend anyone under 30, but you are likely to be more willing to be owned to a higher degree than someone older will because you need the chance to grow and gain experience.
Personally, I have been grappling with this for a while now. (Just turned 35 --damn...)
My approach to work has not changed since I was 20. Interestingly, I am better at it now because of my experience. The chance to actually contribute is higher because I bring more to the table. But there is a growing problem from my point of view.
Terms of employment.
Employers want control and high productivity at the lowest cost. Can't blame them, that is how business is done at its basic level. They want such a high degree of control it is almost silly.
Sometimes, I think many companies are just looking to own everything they can. Get your 20 something excited and make sure your contract ownes everything he does. --Profit!
I was lucky, I have always worked for people who did not do this. They wanted to know who I was and what I could bring to the table. Ideas abound, but ownership of them is a simple question of business intent. I cannot compete with my employer, but am able to honestly discuss the issue whenever new thoughts come up with no worries. We don't need a contract because we have an honest working relationship.
Both parties are ethical and it works well.
Now I look around and am more than a little disgusted. Everyone wants a non-compete. The temps treat you like a cheap whore. Pimps --all of them!
Age discrimination? Sure. Younger people are more likely to be naive in some key way that makes them easier to control. That makes them attractive. It has little to to with ability to learn or cost or potential.
It is all about being owned. The information age has brought the ability to compete down to each one of us. The industry is responding with law and patents and god knows what else to maintain their control.
Anti company? Sure if yours is doing these things. Extremist? Maybe, but it is hard to deny what I spent many years watching happen.
Different view? Bring it on! A somewhat jaded professional who should not yet be jaded would appreciate a different point of view...
Revelation indeed.
Presentation is a big part of communication. Just look at your average geek. They know more than most, but who gets listened to?
Those that put on a good show. (Suits)
What actually bothered me was the fact that my papers looked damn good from that point on. (After ditching cursive that is.) I even used bold and such by pressing harder and softer on the pencil or pen.
You would think it would be obvious that some good learning happened there, but it sure wasn't.
Isn't that the point of going to school in the first place.
Sheesh. --Glad I was not the only one.
BTW, your theory about writing slower than you think has merit. For me, typing is still a problem in this area. Ideas seem to come all at once. Hard to capture the vision when you have to grind it out a character at a time.
Ever tried a simple voice recorder? Works wonders for me when I need to get stuff down fast.
About the 6th grade, I was getting bad marks because my papers were hard to read. This angered me, so I decided to print even though the educators at the time recommended remedial writing classes. (got into a lot of trouble over that)
The school made a *big* deal about this. Said, I would not be able to write a check, sign legal documents and other things. They said my writing would be slower. Nothing but FUD directed at preserving something that does not need to be preserved.
I did not agree and decided to do a little research. Found out that we didn't need cursive then. We sure as heck don't need it now.
The appearance of ones handwriting has a lot to do with their internal wiring. How we all do it depends on how we are built.
I spent the better part of that year learning about handwriting in all its forms in my spare time. Looked at writing from famous people, read their bio. Looked at different styles and related the use of same by different types of people. Looked at documents and fonts. The proper use of these can convey many things not directly contained in the actual words used.
I reached the following conclusions.
- There is no need to handwrite anything using a cursive script. --Nothing.
- You can extend this to the lower-case characters as well. Not needed for anything.
- Knowing these two things makes learning the art of writing a lot easier. (I had not yet used a computer or typewriter at the time.) Less hassle. The effect on me was a better ability to focus on what it is that I was writing instead of how it was written.
For a young child trying to understand the use of language, this is huge. Good educators should be encouraging this instead of clinging to the old ways. Why spend years working hard at a manual skill that one is not well adapted to? That time could be used to better the use of language and structure.
- Trying to make someone write in perfect copy book style who is not pre-disposed to doing so is a direct assult on their being. Could that assult do harm to a young person who might otherwise enjoy the art of writing?
It almost did exactly that for me.
So, the end result?
Some yelling, punishment and poor marks for another 6 months until I was able to better articulate what made me angry about cursive writing. My parents were told I would have problems later in life. I was told, I was not working to get a good education. Bullshit. I could tell them more about writing then they could tell me!
I never wrote that way again and am *way* better for it. Humans tend to evolve. We are seeing this now. Cursive will never die because there are people out there that are well adapted to its use.
Schools will eventually understand the things I learned long ago. They will learn to classify and improve their students writing strengths and provide them with good tools to improve them rather than force everyone into a style of expression that does not fit them.
their purchase of Placeware?
???
I hate them for a lot of reasons. All of which have been posted before.
/.
;-)
I would question the win32 user base at
#2 is one of the primary reasons for said hate. Microsoft has done more to harm innovation than any other company has. Though SCO is a wannabe
#3 I agree with this.
I am not sure I do.
You are not typical among music listeners. Given the time you spend in front of your machine, streaming from a large catalog seems to be a great solution.
Personally, I would do just that if I were in your position.
got it right the first time, did not go under, and the whole thing works on the open hardware and operating system I use now.
It just does not make any sense otherwise. I can do what I want on my current hardware. Why replace that for the right to do as I am told?
Put me in the own the bits camp. Life will be better that way.
how can you not own the bits. Afterall to enjoy them you have to have them right?
In order for the subscription model to work, you are going to need to change your general purpose hardware into specific purpose hardware.
Is that really worth it?
It's is really *hard* to do pay per experience or use or whatever. Why not find ways to make money doing what our machine do now?
We all will have more rights that way.
I get the distinct feeling that this is nothing more than a way to sell DRM to everyone in a way that is not possible with software right now.
you get to purchase a new player. One that will probably accept your existing music, but will never give it up again...
Maybe the player will be nice, but you still need to buy another one.
They get some money per tune. They make the music easier to get than with downloading. You can even download a couple times and not get charged so your money is not wasted.
The DRM approach is foolish. No matter what, people will be able to move the music outside the DRM. Why not get enough cash up front for the whole thing to be worth it?
That is exactly how the current CD model works now and they have made plenty of money doing it.
Streaming via monthly subscription sort of works, if you don't mind sitting at your computer to listen. The Satellite and Cable people have been doing this for a while now and people like it. Think about those systems a bit. The music can still move, but it takes a bit of work to do that. Plus there is some value in their rotating playlists. It would take quite a while to reproduce a couple days of their service in a way that makes sense. So, people pay.
Subscription DRM where you basically give up all your rights to your own damn hardware are not going to fly when perfectly workable business models exist that work with what we have now.
Seems to me Apple has understood something most companies don't. Though, they could save some time and read Slash. Most of us have this down cold for a few years now... Heh.
BTW: I purchase DVD media instead of rent and or pay per view because I do want to have some ownership of the bits. Costs more that way, but I find it very worth it.
I do these things because I want to be in control. There is nothing worse than a stupid situation that you *know* you could get out of with some basic skill...
This is one of the greatest attractions OSS currently holds for me. I know that anything I learn to do with OSS tools, I will continue to be able to do for a long time without getting permission, paying fees, or dealing with silly restrictions that only benefit companies who have enough already.
On a personal level it makes sense as well. Taking the heat for something you are not directly responsible for sucks.
Anyone willing to stick their neck out in order to champion some proprietary software is just gambling with their career. You think they really care?
They don't, it is just about revenue and nothing more. If your problem is shared by many you can be safe in the knowing it will be addressed. You can even look like you are on the ball while advocating your marginal 'standard' in the box thinking. The real truth is you are more lucky if you stick with the crowd.
This attitude promotes strong in the box thinking combined with a healthy and well refined finger pointing and blame shifing skills. Innovation? forget it. Competitive advantage comes down to how hard you can make your people work and how big of a ball buster you have for a purchasing agent. Boy, that sure makes me want to come to work early... (cough)
I once worked in a shop where one of my job duties was to make sure that what I made was correct and within stated tolerances. This shop had a quality assurance department to help make sure this was true, but it was expected that you had tools, knowledge of the machine and the ability to read and understand the specifications because the quality people sometimes made mistakes too.
Well, one batch of rather large and expensive parts was found to be defective one day. It was right after I had complted my stage of the work.
I was found to be at fault for not making sure the guy before me did his job right. I was pissed at first, but thought about it and it made some good sense. Afterall I had the information and tools to evaluate the work done before --why not?
I made damn sure afterword to have the skill and information needed to evaluate both my own work and those before me just to make sure I had the ability to deal with what I was responsible for.
So take this ethic in the context of systems being sold and used today. It's scary.
On one hand you have to trust the software is designed well and does what it says because you cannot actually see the work of others before you --even if you have the skill.
On the other, the company that pays your way wants you to be held accountable for what those same systems do. You did ok the purchase right?
The creator of the software takes almost all of your rights through the legal wrapper that comes with the package while you take the heat and have to deal with the issues.
So you can evaluate basically nothing, must pay blood money for fixes and updates out of your control and take the heat for the fuckups of one of the most cash rich companies around?
At least with Open Source you can examine what you are getting. You can learn how it works and why it does so. You can implement how you see fit and act in a responsible manner.
I was called the fool for hosing up so many parts. I was asked why I worked so hard at doing the right job on parts that were wrong.
Today when I see all the win32 problems I shake my head and wonder at the foolishness of it all. Who in their right mind would actually step up and take that kind of responsibility understanding that they are more or less powerless to act on it?
I guess ignorance is really an excuse in IT. Can't find any other reason for it.
Franky, the whole mess makes me sick.
So, back to the skills. I like knowing that I can go into the woods and make fire, shelter weapons do just fine. Sometimes th
Sorry for the long parent post. (I should have been working also...)
;-)
"They wont accept no restrictions as that would likely stop them selling you the same music 10 times, and that is really what they want to do."
In this we agree completely.
"I argree here but also disagree! DVD's yes (space is still an issue here) CDs no. I do not use them, on the rare occasions that I buy them they are ripped and they shoved in storage."
I believe this answers your own question really. The CD is almost worthless because technology has all but eclipsed it. Since it hasn't (yet) with the content on a DVD, that DVD is still worth something.
"And surely another area where CDs are overpriced. The cost of producing the soundtrack is surely part of ther movie cost and thus selling the soundtrack could surely be done at a much lower cost?"
I was actually talking about just running the DVD only just paying attention to the audio. Just listen to the movie --not the produced musical soundtrack. Agreed though about the soundtrack.
"Music has a much higher replay value that that of a Movie. "
I agree for the most part. I still listen to my first CD often. Movies do have some repeat value, it is just different from the CD in some ways.
For me the issue of music price has been a sore one for a while. New vinyl was about $8.00 Singles were $3-4.00. The price of a CD has never dropped even though the medium promised great cost reductions. That first CD was $21.99. In 1985 dollars that was a lot. --It still has the sticker on it! Today those dollars are worth less, but the minor drop in price does not reflect the cost savings originally promised. Dire Straits "Love Over Gold" is still $21.99 last I checked this year. WTF?!?
I payed the price then because of the long life and high sonic impact that only got better with new equipment. I will still pay now, if the music is good --for the very reasons you indicate.
Good music does have a high replay value indeed compared to movies.
The trick is getting the good music into my hands where I have a chance to purchase it easily.
A good album is worth as much as a good movie to many people, me included. In some cases it is worth more. So why pay so much for a movie, or why not accept the value of the album at face value?
I accept the higher cost of DVD due to the technical nature of the content. Those visuals did not come cheap. I understand that and am willing to let the studios make their money. At least they do a good job of letting me know what they have and what its value is.
I may not watch movies as often as I do listen to music, but I do re-watch them from time to time. Sometimes a good story is worth hearing again just as a good piece of music is.
They are both stories if done right that evoke emotion and creative, sometimes profound thought. When something strikes me that way, I tend to want to capture it for later. Often the reason is that I want to see if the changing times combined with the same presentation will evoke something different. Good movies and music both work this way though music does it more easily.
You know, the movie companies know this to some degree, or at least are allowing for it. If I were to purchase 'Independance day' it would have to be at rock bottom dollar. Though the technical part of what I am getting is more than I get with music, the replay value is quite a bit lower. Consider another movie like 'Brazil'. I will watch that one more times because the story is complex and interesting. Given the times, it also is more relevant. It also costs more which leads me to believe the movie people understand some of this and want people to pay for it.
The music people don't get this to the same degree. Shallow Bubble gum pop boy bands cost the same as well thought out albums with good stories and continuity. Why is that? (Britney vs Dire Straits "love over gold" or Saga "Worlds apart" (Your tastes may vary, but you get the idea.)
As for background, movie soundtracks are sometimes very interesting. Some movie styles lend themselves to audio only listening. Maybe that is just a matter of perception or habit on my part, but I can't be the only one.
DVD also compares favorably to subscription television as a CD compares to XM or digital music delivered via cable. I have found that a few good media purchases each month cost a little more than quality subscription programming. The value is higher however. I can loan the movies out (though I want to loan copies), watch interesting ones when I want, and occupy the kids with quality movies when they want to just watch something. Same goes for music.
You can get a lot of use value out of either DVD or CD media provided you are given the choices that enable that to happen for your tastes.
The movie companies are basically doing that where the music people are failing.
Finally, I want to own the CD and or DVD. I would much rather put my dollars toward something I have an interest
tell me much. Stats are stats are stats. I did enjoy reading it, but feel the answer is elsewhere.
CD sales have dropped for me recently and this is why.
DVD movies now occupy that under $20 knee jerk purchase price point. Everyone knows a DVD is better than a CD in general, so how come the CD is still so expensive? I don't think twice about $16.99 for a DVD, that's a nice deal really. So what does that do for the same pricing on the CD? All I know is that $16.99 number on a CD is pretty unattractive in general these days. To pay as much for a CD as I do a movie, it had better be a damn good CD.
The current buttload of music being pimped via the usual Clear Channel right now is garbage plain and simple. Sure, there is plenty of good music, but it sure is hard to find, unless...
One can sample! Maybe that $16.99 is worth it. (It sometimes is.) I am willing to look and consider the purchase, but nobody is showing. Wonder why they don't sell product? Duh!
Currently I don't download anything. Thought I would make the change and see what happens with me and my family.
I must say that without P2P, I am missing out. All the radio stations here play the same (crap) music. There is little to get excited about. I know there is a lot of music that I would be interested in buying, but I can't find it easily!
P2P is costing the RIAA something in the young market though. If they (kids)have the money they will buy the CD, even if they have downloaded it. But if they have a (better) choice they won't. These days there are more good choices, so kids buy fewer CD's because they know they can get the music somehow later, but can't easily repeat a spur of the moment movie trip. So, the RIAA is losing sales here in my view. In a twisted sort of way, they might be right with the younger crowd. They can squeeze more out of their latest boy band if there is less P2P, but at what cost?
On second hand they might already be hosed. When I shut down the P2P, my kids ended up doing the same thing I did. They go to school, talk about the music, find out who has it and why, and copy it if it fits.
There are more CDRs laying around the house now than when P2P was running.
Now, I do get excited about movies and guess what? That is what I buy. The movie market appeals to everyone at some level. There are several layers to the whole thing that make it easy to sell to those looking to buy that music just does not have today.
The RIAA is currently trying like hell to milk everything they can from the kids. (Remember the point earlier about cost?) Problem is that those same kids also have DVD, subscription TV, cell phone plans and other new things to worry about. With all those new choices offering different values, is it any wonder CD sales are not as attractive given their low value proposition in comparison?
Your average teenage girl can get a cell plan for the cost of many CD's that will provide way more bang for the buck than that CD will...
I think the RIAA is getting squeezed right out of their prime market because of these things and their own ignorance.
Now here I am sitting with my disposable income looking for something to buy. Does it take much of a stretch to see that I am going to buy something from those people willing to entertain my business?
Whatever problems the the movie companies have with digital are not getting in the way of moving product. They are showing me lots of pricing options, good content and good value across the board. I can easily find blockbusters along with interesting smaller films.
What do I get on the music side of things?
Shit.
The majority of the content is aimed at people half my age. I cannot realistically sample using the radio because they are all but owned by the big boys, so they mostly play the same things. Going into the music store to sample is a joke really. All they do is put the same tracks on the in-store boxes that I just got d
As I recall, they did not like the rental business very much in the beginning.
Given the money made by these chains, maybe they still don't like them, but have had to live with them until now...
This model is a lot closer to pay per view than the rental one is. In the end, they DO want pay per view in every venue they can get it.
You know some stores are selling DVD media at pretty low prices --even for new release.
That expectation devalues DVD in general. How much are these going to cost?
$5.00? Probably not worth it for two days. $2.00?
Maybe they can work hard at keeping these at $4.99 while slowly raising the prices of the normal DVD media...
Something to think about.
the less useful machine. I thought Bill was the leader in this area. Must we emulate everything?
The X window system is what makes a Linux machine multi-user. It also makes it useful as a multi-user machine at the same time.
The core of UNIX power comes from the multi-user philosophy. X was crafted with the same goals in mind. That is why they both have been around for such a long time.
Both of these things come at a small price; namely, a requirement for some basic literacy with regard to the system and how it works.
YOU CANNOT HAVE THE POWER WITHOUT PAYING THAT PRICE.
I did not spend the last 7 years learning these things only to have my environment dumbed down for the sake of those not willing to step up and actually learn something about the machines they say they need.
All of those folks wanting a frame-buffer only system really don't want multi-user systems --or at least don't want useful ones. Or, more likely, just flat don't know better.
As for those folks asking for X emulation, I ask this?
If the X window emulation does what X is supposed to wouldn't you have what you have with X right now plus added overhead? Why not consider using a toolkit to make the X development easier while not ruining the multi-user nature of Linux?
Win32 machines are multi-tasking machines. Sure, you can run processes as more than one user, even run applications on your machine as more than one user, but in the end, you still have only one desktop.
Many of the problems come from that one desktop and its close intergration with the rest of the OS. This is the same shit that Microsoft and Apple to a degree have been pushing all along. We don't need this.
For those that think we do, read again. WE DON'T.
Common arguments:
- The network display capability makes X slow.
Bullshit. The fastest graphics systems around have always used X. Want to see a sweet X server that does the network display thing nicely. Get any SGI IRIX machine and examine the X environment. 3D capable display, both in a window and full screen, on screen video in real time with sizeable windows, network applications, speed. All have been present for longer than the more capable win32 environments have existed. Local display requests do not go through the entire network stack. This combined with the excellence of UNIX and Linux network stacks make this a moot point anyway.
X is hard to configure.
Each year this is much less so. Soon it will also be a non issue. We have gone from hand tweaking our display to spin the CD and choose the type of display. Give it a bit more time and you will soon get all the little features you think you need as well. All without any sacrifice of the multi-user values that make Linux and X what they are; namely, better than everyone else.
Nobody needs all that extra capability.
Well, that is because most of them do not know what they are missing. We need to keep the power in the box by default; otherwise, we will end up running the same way others on more limited systems do now. Is that worth it?
X is old.
Well so is UNIX. Does that make it bad? No, if it were, it would be dead long before now.
This is long enough. If you actually want to see more take a look at my journal, there is plenty more in there for the reading.
To sum this up:
If you really don't understand what X and UNIX is about, just spare yourself and get a nice wintel PC and get it over with. Maybe split the middle and get an Apple. (I *like* Apple BTW, that's not the whole point here...)
If you want to actually take some control over your computing environment and have the ability to exercise choices, step up and shut up and start using X.
It will be worth your time in the end.