Instead of opening it up like that, anyone who has a.com should be allowed to register the.xxx version at the same price as their.com address.
There, no "gold rush". Even though it probably means giving up some profit, it's the right thing to do.
There may be some cases where.com,.org and.net are all registered to different people and they would all want the.xxx version. In that case, I'd recommend a simple lottery.
But all of this is stupid anyway. The Internet is more international now. We should be dropping new 3 letter TLD names and sticking with.us etc.
IIRC, it hasn't since XP SP2 as the firewall is enabled by default. Any open ports a users system has since then is because they allowed those connections themselves.
Nope. There are still lots of ports open, it's just that Microsoft put a firewall on the system, too.
The problem still exists. But now there is a wrapper obscuring it that you have to get through. That isn't solving the problem. That's just attempting to hide it.
And exploits have been found for Microsoft's firewall. Which demonstrates the problem with not solving it at the lowest level.
I can put an Ubuntu machine with a default install onto the Internet without any firewall and still be safe from worms.
I cannot do that with WinXP (or Win2K or Win9x or WinNT). If you aren't solving the problem at the lowest level, you're not really solving it. You're just hiding it.
There are a limited number of ways for a machine to be cracked.
#1. Worms - if you don't have any open ports, then you're pretty much immune to worms (unless they can crack basic TCP/IP operations). Ubuntu ships BY DEFAULT with no open ports. Windows ships with lots of open ports. Change that behaviour and you've solved an entire CLASS of attacks.
#2. Viruses - an infected program infects other programs, but does not otherwise change those programs. This is not very common now.
#3. Trojans - this is the biggest current threat. And there is no real way to remove it 100%, but it CAN be limited (again, look at Ubuntu). This is primarily a social engineering attack. You have to convince the user to run an app or open a message that will exploit a flaw in their email app (and so forth).
So, why aren't we seeing a focus on the biggest security issue?
Why hasn't Microsoft released a bootable CD so you can run the anti-virus/spyware/adware stuff easier? Clean up the junk AND patch the vulnerabilities in Outlook. Even if it means turning off some of the functionality.
If you cannot do it securely, then you should not do it.
But you still have danger to your people from radiation or chemical spills with the other 2.
Biological weapons can (usually) be transmitted from person to person. Infect 1 person and he can infect 1,000 others. The disease breeds inside the victim.
Radiation is only a threat to those handling the materials.
Chemicals are a bigger threat than radiation, but less than biological. And chemical spills are usually easy to see or the effects are noticed quickly. Chemical weapons are very similar to the pesticides that we use.
Biological - Not really all that useful. There's too much danger of it infecting your people.
Chemical - Used to restrict the enemy's access to terrain which forces him to attack along routes you've selected or require him to attack wearing protective suits. Chemicals can also be used to "soften" a target before your own troops attack.
Nuclear - Big boom. Lots of damage.
So, I can see them working on chemical weapons and nukes. But biological weapons make no sense for them. Particularly when the "enemy" is only 10 miles across the border from them.
1 month for them to fix it, 1 month for the customers QA and patch their systems.
As soon as the patch is released, the crackers will be checking the files replaced and the differences in those files.
They can usually get and exploit fielded within 24 hours or less.
The best you can do is to take steps to minimize the threat and log any activity so you can see if you've been cracked. Running snort can tell you if any traffic is suspicious.
Just so we're clear, their logic is that the internet is a catalyst for youth vandalism?
Pretty much. Yep.
Man, kids these days. When I was their age, we had to vandalize stuff the old fashioned way.
Oh, they're still vandalizing the old fashioned way. Almost everyone had rocks when they were growing up (but the ones who didn't will swear it made them better people).
What's different now is that instead of hanging out behind the gym, smoking cigarettes you stole from your Dad, telling your friends how you smashed Mr. Crabapple's window and ran away.....
You post on your MySpace site a link to a video taken by a friend with a cell phone that is hosted on YouTube and all your friends tell u how k3wl u r. lol. h3 is gh3y!
The same as the kind you buy right now to protect your iPod (but really to make it look different from everyone else's).
You'll be able to buy "custom" wrappers, skins, protectors, whatever with built-in Faraday cages and little velcro flip-up windows to unshield your RFID chip.
In fact, now would be a good time to start working on those designs and the marketing material.
#1. RFID - nothing "disruptive" about that. It's been showing up in different uses for a long time now.
#2. Web Services -
Software-as-a-service (Saas), mashups, Web 2.0, RSS feeds, Wikis, blogs, the rewritable Web, social networking spaces, group chat rooms -- no matter which aspect you're talking about, clearly something new is happening here.
Yeah, "new" as in/. being around for years and years already.
#3. Server Virtualization (for free)! - I've been using VMWare since the close of the last century. It's "disruptive" now that it will be "free"? Whatever.
#4. Advanced Graphics Processing - Right. I'm sure everyone will find that typing their documents in 3d is so..... the same as doing it on 2d.
#5. Mobile Security -
The perimeter is gone and the enterprise needs to protect itself from potentially infected remote users.
The "perimeter" needs to be re-established and re-evaluated as "defense in depth" with multiple levels of stateful firewalls and intrusion detection.
The stupid "scan the computer before you let it on the network" approach is too brittle. All it will take is the first virus / trojan / worm that can "reply" to that scan with faked credentials for the apps that are supposed to be scanned and you have an infected box on your network. Particularly with the new advances in rootkits for Windows.
That depends very much on the kind of people working in that company. If they're not too computer illetarate, it shouldn't be a problem. Linux isn't that complicated.You can easily maintain it yourself.
And if you're the consultant/contractor, you can do things like having the Linux server email its logs to you, every day.
Or even write a short script so that it checks in with your site every day or hour or minute or whatever. Of course, since your site is running Linux, you've already scripted it so it will page/call/email you when any machine misses its scheduled checks. So you can call the client and ask if there's something wrong at that site. Did they lose power? Is it on fire?
In case of a real server problem, you already have all the text-based configuration files and a list of the installed apps so you can get their box up and running quickly and then recover their data from their backup tape (which was also emailing you every day letting you know that it was happy).
Where this breaks down is the Windows servers running software that is only available for Windows and that does not support such automated reporting or configuration archiving. I hate the registry.
To the small businessman it defines you as an adolescent nincompoop still writing his missives on the men's room wall.
Yep. Right up to the point where the "small businessman" has to face the realities of dealing with Microsoft's current licensing policy.
The problems described in the original article are, mostly, caused by Microsoft's attempts to artificially segment a market so that Microsoft can extract the most revenue from those segments.
Which is why the Ubuntu installation went so easily. It wasn't designed to segment the market. It doesn't matter who is installing it or on what hardware (as long as it's recognized) or what version and there is no unlocking code.
So, yes, being blunt about Microsoft's practices does make you sound like "an adolescent nincompoop" to anyone who is not aware of the facts. To anyone who does understand (and has experienced them first hand), it is nothing more than bluntness.
I don't think Ron Hovsepian is clueless or malevolent. I've met him and think he is a really nice guy.
Being "clueless" does not exclude being "a really nice guy".
Personally, I believe that he knew exactly what he was doing and decided to sell out to Microsoft for a LOT of money anyway.
It was carefully prepared by Microsoft legal to try and bypass the GPLv2, and I think to their shame Novell helped them do this.
Yep. He sold out to Microsoft for a LOT of money.
Novell gave it to them without Microsoft having to do anything risky like suing Linux users (all of which would also be Microsoft customers). It didn't cost them much - only $400 million. At least when Sun sold out in the EU case they got $2 billion:-).
And that is why Hovsepian is clueless.
He could have gotten a LOT MORE MONEY for selling out. He could have gotten over a BILLION dollars. Instead, he settled for a couple hundred million and the death of Novell.
I'm guessing that they didn't want to over burden anyone's video card or monitor.
And the little "sparkticker" or whatever at the bottom is totally unreadable.
But it is incredibly useful to know that the "REMLAB web mech designer" has a vulnerability. And I am totally being sarcastic. There are 8 flash links there. And that's the kind of content they felt was necessary? You're looping static TEXT. You are fucking morons!
I think there is a fair bit of difference between those two things.
Yes. About 22 years worth of "difference". Seeing as how I believe that the Compaq luggable was around in 1984.
It looks to me more like a desktop designed to be easy to move around than a traditional laptop.
Yes. Hence the term "luggable".
The computer you linked to looks more like an ancient precurser to the laptop than a gamers system that is easy to move around.
"gamers system"?
I guess you can make the case that a luggable computer you could use the way you would a desktop when its unpacked isnt that hard to think of and therefore not that innovative. But if thats true then why wasnt anyone else making computers like this before them?
Compaq was making them back in 1984.
The reason they fell out of style is because you have all the limitations of a laptop with the weight of a desktop.
Could it be that MS Office (#1 on this list) just isnt popular with the slashdot crowd and that is why the first several posts are denouncing PC World as paid Microsoft shills?
It could be.
But then..... look at #8
8. Dell XPS M2010
Sporting a cutting-edge design, the Dell XPS M2010 (starting price $2999) makes a bold and immediate statement. Not quite a desktop and definitely less portable than a standard notebook, this hybrid system neatly balances elements of both. You get a 20.1-inch screen, a slot-loading DVD drive, and a detachable, full-size Bluetooth keyboard, plus an integrated Webcam, eight built-in speakers, and a subwoofer. Powering this entertainment system are ATI graphics, an Intel Core 2 Duo CPU, and up to 4GB of RAM. It also folds up into a briefcase-like bundle, complete with a handle--but it weighs a hefty 18-plus pounds.
Yes, the "luggable" computer. But, all you have to do to make it "innovative" is to add more speakers (speakers with a portable computer, how... innovative) and a bigger screen (see previous).
And reviews like that are why PC World is disparaged.
Yes, most people use windows, that is not what I was disputing. The dispute is with your "therefore". Just because most people use windows it does not logically follow that the caricature is of a windows support person. It might be more likely than it being a windows support person, but it doesn't make it a windows support person. Fine though, let it be a windows support guy. I don't think a lot of Linux folks who claim to want to help new people are much better.
And what you had said before (in reference to Linux) was...
The tanks are still free, but the "free support" if you will, lives in a system of caves and revile the surface dwellers; insulting them for asking questions unless they do the secret handshake first. Now obviously not all, not even a majority of linux people are going to do that to new folks, but enough do that we have the unfortunate reputation to most folks of being the caricature of the jackass IT guy best described in the "Nick Burns, your company's Computer Guy" sketches on Saturday Night Live.
No, that caricature exists because it is common amongst Windows support techs.
Yet it hasn't seemed to hamper Windows adoption.
And, as I've stated, the people who will try Linux (except the trolls) are the kind of people who know more about their systems than the average user. So they will be less likely to need any "help" from offensive individuals such as "Nick Burns".
First off, make it a male character, not a female character.
Then ask them if they'd torture a criminal.
After the torture (for those who do volunteer) tell them that there was a mistake and that the guy was innocent. But their assistance is needed with the real criminal.
Well, the free support I was referring to was the IRC channels and Forums. I probably didn't make it clear but I was saying that the people who do venture into IRC channels and forums for the first time looking for help usually get informed fairly quickly that they should stfu and figure it out themselves.
I tend to hand out on the Ubuntu channel and I don't see that.
That's a surefire way to scare off people who could otherwise be great examples of how linux can work for anyone who tries. Note that difference. What is said about linux is "it works for anyone who will try", what that really means is the old joke of "linux is only free if your time is worthless".
No. Linux is free (as in speech, as in beer).
Accomplishing a specific task in Linux takes effort, the same as it does in Windows or any other system.
But most people have already invested the time to learn how to accomplish that task in Windows and they no longer remember the effort it took.
I've taught people who have never used a computer before. I know the effort it takes for them to learn. My best example was a woman who could not double click with a mouse. She had to hold it still with one hand and click the buttons with her other hand.
A week of playing solitaire and she had mastered the double click and fine mouse control.
Compare apples to apples, okay?
"Very few people will even try linux". Yes and that is why we should try to retain those people, instead of basically saying "are you good enough/smart enough to use this OS?".
Again, those are the ones who already know how their systems work and how to do research online. Those are the ones who switch to Linux and stay there.
"Or they want something to complain about to show how superior they are to the geeks who prefer Linux." I'm unclear what you mean by that. If you're referring to people complaining about things not working in Linux and then acting like they've just "shown them", maybe it's because the hype makes Linux out to be the second coming of Christ?
Well, that's a pretty good example of what I was saying. Linux is a kernel. Even a whole distribution is just an OS.
Who would hype it (and who would believe that hype) to the same level as "the second coming of Christ"?
I'm sorry I find this to be inaccurate.
What is inaccurate?
That most people use Windows? Nope, the facts contradict you.
That most computer support people are Windows support people? Nope, the facts contradict you.
Therefore, the caricature is of a Windows support person. Whether you want to accept that fact or not.
The caricature is of a jackass who decides that he has the right to mock people because he has a skill they don't. This is made worse in a lot of the sketches with the choice for the user being either "figure it out yourself" or "MOVE!" and having him do the whole thing.
Nick Burns isn't supporting their Linux boxes. He's supporting their Windows boxes.
The caricature is OS-independent. You could have a Nick Burns in Windows, Linux, OSX or in your refrigerator repairman.
No. If he was doing Linux support he would be a lot less amusing because far fewer people would have experienced that type of Linux support.
Which is the reason you don't see "Nick Burns, jet engine mechanic" as a comedy routine. It wouldn't be funny because very few people would have any experience with that situation.
Nick Burns is funny to so many people because so many people have had similar experiences with Windows support personel.
Not with Linux. With Windows.
Trolls complain about Linux simply because it is different from Windows and they don't want to re-learn their "computer skills". But the reality is that they don't have "computer skills". All they have is "Windows skills".
Now obviously not all, not even a majority of linux people are going to do that to new folks, but enough do that we have the unfortunate reputation to most folks of being the caricature of the jackass IT guy best described in the "Nick Burns, your company's Computer Guy" sketches on Saturday Night Live.
Pay attention to that.
Most of the computer users are using Windows. Therefore, that caricature is about a Windows support person and Windows users.
The tanks are still free, but the "free support" if you will, lives in a system of caves and revile the surface dwellers; insulting them for asking questions unless they do the secret handshake first.
...and...
Most people are accustomed to being able to call a number, wait on hold for an hour or so, and then slowly work through their problem with a technician, some of whom are more polite and or better at communicating than others.
And "most people" are not going to try Linux because "most people" use whatever OS was installed when they purchased the computer from Dell or HP or such.
Very few people will even try Linux. Those few are (aside from the trolls) the few who understand how the system works (hardware / OS / apps / etc).
The trolls simply want Microsoft Windows... for free. Or they want something to complain about to show how superior they are to the geeks who prefer Linux.
Phone support for Linux is available to those who need it. Red Hat provides it. Canonical provides it. The reason you don't hear about it that much is because the people who use it are usually supporting corporate servers, not home desktops. The people who run Linux on their home desktop already know how to use the Internet to find the answers they need.
Phone support for home users of Linux will be necessary when Linux is pre-installed on machines sold to home users by Dell and HP and so forth. And when that happens, Dell and HP and the others will provide the phone support.
But that is a long ways away. Look for Linux to gain in the corporate/government desktop market first. And the phone support for those will be the same as it is today. They will have their own IT staff trained on Linux and the specific apps that they use.
Ubuntu on the desktop is ready, today, for those people who have requirements that are met by Ubuntu.
Other people have different requirements. It's as simple as that.
#1. People who are already using Ubuntu (like me) as their desktop.
#2. People who are using some other Linux distribution as their desktop.
#3. People who are using a Mac or *BSD or whatever.
#4. People who are using Windows because of reasons A, B, C and/or D.
Whether X is a "serious desktop contender" really depends upon what YOU consider to be the requirements for a "serious desktop contender".
Do people ask the same question in other areas of their life? Do they go to a pizza place and question when pineapple and Canadian bacon pizza is "suitable" for dinner?
Do they go to a Ford dealership and ask whether a Ford is "suitable" for driving?
Teachers or educators, however you'll have it, face the issue of copyrights, royalties, and public performance caveats all the time.
I'm sure they do. But I'm not seeing why any of them would list it as something to spend money on teaching it to kids.
To me, it sounds like their "independent consultant" wasn't as independent as was advertised. Particularly since Access Copyright http://www.accesscopyright.ca/ was involved in the production.
The Captain Copyright site was created for educators because they told us through surveys and focus groups conducted by an independent consultant that they needed tools to help them teach their students about copyright, but none were available.
I can understand asking for more text books, smaller classes or new equipment... but what "educator" is going to put "copyright education" on their list?
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of opening it up like that, anyone who has a .com should be allowed to register the .xxx version at the same price as their .com address.
.com, .org and .net are all registered to different people and they would all want the .xxx version. In that case, I'd recommend a simple lottery.
.us etc.
There, no "gold rush". Even though it probably means giving up some profit, it's the right thing to do.
There may be some cases where
But all of this is stupid anyway. The Internet is more international now. We should be dropping new 3 letter TLD names and sticking with
Nope. There are still lots of ports open, it's just that Microsoft put a firewall on the system, too.
The problem still exists. But now there is a wrapper obscuring it that you have to get through. That isn't solving the problem. That's just attempting to hide it.
And exploits have been found for Microsoft's firewall. Which demonstrates the problem with not solving it at the lowest level.
I can put an Ubuntu machine with a default install onto the Internet without any firewall and still be safe from worms.
I cannot do that with WinXP (or Win2K or Win9x or WinNT). If you aren't solving the problem at the lowest level, you're not really solving it. You're just hiding it.
There are a limited number of ways for a machine to be cracked.
#1. Worms - if you don't have any open ports, then you're pretty much immune to worms (unless they can crack basic TCP/IP operations). Ubuntu ships BY DEFAULT with no open ports. Windows ships with lots of open ports. Change that behaviour and you've solved an entire CLASS of attacks.
#2. Viruses - an infected program infects other programs, but does not otherwise change those programs. This is not very common now.
#3. Trojans - this is the biggest current threat. And there is no real way to remove it 100%, but it CAN be limited (again, look at Ubuntu). This is primarily a social engineering attack. You have to convince the user to run an app or open a message that will exploit a flaw in their email app (and so forth).
So, why aren't we seeing a focus on the biggest security issue?
Why hasn't Microsoft released a bootable CD so you can run the anti-virus/spyware/adware stuff easier? Clean up the junk AND patch the vulnerabilities in Outlook. Even if it means turning off some of the functionality.
If you cannot do it securely, then you should not do it.
An accidental outbreak of smallpox in your army and you're suddenly far more vulnerable than before.
Biological weapons can (usually) be transmitted from person to person. Infect 1 person and he can infect 1,000 others. The disease breeds inside the victim.
Radiation is only a threat to those handling the materials.
Chemicals are a bigger threat than radiation, but less than biological. And chemical spills are usually easy to see or the effects are noticed quickly. Chemical weapons are very similar to the pesticides that we use.
Biological - Not really all that useful. There's too much danger of it infecting your people.
Chemical - Used to restrict the enemy's access to terrain which forces him to attack along routes you've selected or require him to attack wearing protective suits. Chemicals can also be used to "soften" a target before your own troops attack.
Nuclear - Big boom. Lots of damage.
So, I can see them working on chemical weapons and nukes. But biological weapons make no sense for them. Particularly when the "enemy" is only 10 miles across the border from them.
As soon as the patch is released, the crackers will be checking the files replaced and the differences in those files.
They can usually get and exploit fielded within 24 hours or less.
The best you can do is to take steps to minimize the threat and log any activity so you can see if you've been cracked. Running snort can tell you if any traffic is suspicious.
But you should be doing that anyway.
Pretty much. Yep.
Oh, they're still vandalizing the old fashioned way. Almost everyone had rocks when they were growing up (but the ones who didn't will swear it made them better people).
What's different now is that instead of hanging out behind the gym, smoking cigarettes you stole from your Dad, telling your friends how you smashed Mr. Crabapple's window and ran away
You post on your MySpace site a link to a video taken by a friend with a cell phone that is hosted on YouTube and all your friends tell u how k3wl u r. lol. h3 is gh3y!
The same as the kind you buy right now to protect your iPod (but really to make it look different from everyone else's).
You'll be able to buy "custom" wrappers, skins, protectors, whatever with built-in Faraday cages and little velcro flip-up windows to unshield your RFID chip.
In fact, now would be a good time to start working on those designs and the marketing material.
#2. Web Services -
Yeah, "new" as in
#3. Server Virtualization (for free)! - I've been using VMWare since the close of the last century. It's "disruptive" now that it will be "free"? Whatever.
#4. Advanced Graphics Processing - Right. I'm sure everyone will find that typing their documents in 3d is so
#5. Mobile Security -
The "perimeter" needs to be re-established and re-evaluated as "defense in depth" with multiple levels of stateful firewalls and intrusion detection.
The stupid "scan the computer before you let it on the network" approach is too brittle. All it will take is the first virus / trojan / worm that can "reply" to that scan with faked credentials for the apps that are supposed to be scanned and you have an infected box on your network. Particularly with the new advances in rootkits for Windows.
And if you're the consultant/contractor, you can do things like having the Linux server email its logs to you, every day.
Or even write a short script so that it checks in with your site every day or hour or minute or whatever. Of course, since your site is running Linux, you've already scripted it so it will page/call/email you when any machine misses its scheduled checks. So you can call the client and ask if there's something wrong at that site. Did they lose power? Is it on fire?
In case of a real server problem, you already have all the text-based configuration files and a list of the installed apps so you can get their box up and running quickly and then recover their data from their backup tape (which was also emailing you every day letting you know that it was happy).
Where this breaks down is the Windows servers running software that is only available for Windows and that does not support such automated reporting or configuration archiving. I hate the registry.
Yep. Right up to the point where the "small businessman" has to face the realities of dealing with Microsoft's current licensing policy.
The problems described in the original article are, mostly, caused by Microsoft's attempts to artificially segment a market so that Microsoft can extract the most revenue from those segments.
Which is why the Ubuntu installation went so easily. It wasn't designed to segment the market. It doesn't matter who is installing it or on what hardware (as long as it's recognized) or what version and there is no unlocking code.
So, yes, being blunt about Microsoft's practices does make you sound like "an adolescent nincompoop" to anyone who is not aware of the facts. To anyone who does understand (and has experienced them first hand), it is nothing more than bluntness.
Being "clueless" does not exclude being "a really nice guy".
Personally, I believe that he knew exactly what he was doing and decided to sell out to Microsoft for a LOT of money anyway.
Yep. He sold out to Microsoft for a LOT of money.
And that is why Hovsepian is clueless.
He could have gotten a LOT MORE MONEY for selling out. He could have gotten over a BILLION dollars. Instead, he settled for a couple hundred million and the death of Novell.
If you want to talk about S L O W.
Every file opened is decrypted, scanned and then viewed.
The same with light yellow.
The same with light green.
I'm guessing that they didn't want to over burden anyone's video card or monitor.
And the little "sparkticker" or whatever at the bottom is totally unreadable.
But it is incredibly useful to know that the "REMLAB web mech designer" has a vulnerability. And I am totally being sarcastic. There are 8 flash links there. And that's the kind of content they felt was necessary? You're looping static TEXT. You are fucking morons!
Yes. About 22 years worth of "difference". Seeing as how I believe that the Compaq luggable was around in 1984.
Yes. Hence the term "luggable".
"gamers system"?
Compaq was making them back in 1984.
The reason they fell out of style is because you have all the limitations of a laptop with the weight of a desktop.
Gamers who want to move their EXPANDABLE desktop machines buy something like this:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/bags/37dc/
There, the portability of a cinder block with the expandability of a desktop system.
Surprisingly enough, they make great gifts.
It could be.
But then
Now, compare that to this system.
http://www.obsoletecomputermuseum.org/compaq/
Yes, the "luggable" computer. But, all you have to do to make it "innovative" is to add more speakers (speakers with a portable computer, how
And reviews like that are why PC World is disparaged.
1. Microsoft Office 2007
2. Intel Core 2 Duo
3. Parallels Desktop for Mac
4. Nintendo Wii
5. Samsung 32GB SSD
6. Sony Reader
7. YouOS
8. Dell XPS M2010
9. Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 750GB
0. T-Mobile Dash
And what you had said before (in reference to Linux) was
No, that caricature exists because it is common amongst Windows support techs.
Yet it hasn't seemed to hamper Windows adoption.
And, as I've stated, the people who will try Linux (except the trolls) are the kind of people who know more about their systems than the average user. So they will be less likely to need any "help" from offensive individuals such as "Nick Burns".
First off, make it a male character, not a female character.
Then ask them if they'd torture a criminal.
After the torture (for those who do volunteer) tell them that there was a mistake and that the guy was innocent. But their assistance is needed with the real criminal.
I tend to hand out on the Ubuntu channel and I don't see that.
No. Linux is free (as in speech, as in beer).
Accomplishing a specific task in Linux takes effort, the same as it does in Windows or any other system.
But most people have already invested the time to learn how to accomplish that task in Windows and they no longer remember the effort it took.
I've taught people who have never used a computer before. I know the effort it takes for them to learn. My best example was a woman who could not double click with a mouse. She had to hold it still with one hand and click the buttons with her other hand.
A week of playing solitaire and she had mastered the double click and fine mouse control.
Compare apples to apples, okay?
Again, those are the ones who already know how their systems work and how to do research online. Those are the ones who switch to Linux and stay there.
Well, that's a pretty good example of what I was saying. Linux is a kernel. Even a whole distribution is just an OS.
Who would hype it (and who would believe that hype) to the same level as "the second coming of Christ"?
What is inaccurate?
That most people use Windows? Nope, the facts contradict you.
That most computer support people are Windows support people? Nope, the facts contradict you.
Therefore, the caricature is of a Windows support person. Whether you want to accept that fact or not.
Nick Burns isn't supporting their Linux boxes. He's supporting their Windows boxes.
No. If he was doing Linux support he would be a lot less amusing because far fewer people would have experienced that type of Linux support.
Which is the reason you don't see "Nick Burns, jet engine mechanic" as a comedy routine. It wouldn't be funny because very few people would have any experience with that situation.
Nick Burns is funny to so many people because so many people have had similar experiences with Windows support personel.
Not with Linux. With Windows.
Trolls complain about Linux simply because it is different from Windows and they don't want to re-learn their "computer skills". But the reality is that they don't have "computer skills". All they have is "Windows skills".
Pay attention to that.
Most of the computer users are using Windows. Therefore, that caricature is about a Windows support person and Windows users.
And "most people" are not going to try Linux because "most people" use whatever OS was installed when they purchased the computer from Dell or HP or such.
Very few people will even try Linux. Those few are (aside from the trolls) the few who understand how the system works (hardware / OS / apps / etc).
The trolls simply want Microsoft Windows
Phone support for Linux is available to those who need it. Red Hat provides it. Canonical provides it. The reason you don't hear about it that much is because the people who use it are usually supporting corporate servers, not home desktops. The people who run Linux on their home desktop already know how to use the Internet to find the answers they need.
Phone support for home users of Linux will be necessary when Linux is pre-installed on machines sold to home users by Dell and HP and so forth. And when that happens, Dell and HP and the others will provide the phone support.
But that is a long ways away. Look for Linux to gain in the corporate/government desktop market first. And the phone support for those will be the same as it is today. They will have their own IT staff trained on Linux and the specific apps that they use.
Ubuntu on the desktop is ready, today, for those people who have requirements that are met by Ubuntu.
Other people have different requirements. It's as simple as that.
#1. People who are already using Ubuntu (like me) as their desktop.
#2. People who are using some other Linux distribution as their desktop.
#3. People who are using a Mac or *BSD or whatever.
#4. People who are using Windows because of reasons A, B, C and/or D.
Whether X is a "serious desktop contender" really depends upon what YOU consider to be the requirements for a "serious desktop contender".
Do people ask the same question in other areas of their life? Do they go to a pizza place and question when pineapple and Canadian bacon pizza is "suitable" for dinner?
Do they go to a Ford dealership and ask whether a Ford is "suitable" for driving?
And so forth.
I'm sure they do. But I'm not seeing why any of them would list it as something to spend money on teaching it to kids.
To me, it sounds like their "independent consultant" wasn't as independent as was advertised. Particularly since Access Copyright
http://www.accesscopyright.ca/
was involved in the production.
Seems that they've picked up on how dumb their idea was.
I can understand asking for more text books, smaller classes or new equipment