Here are 5 features from Linux that MS should include...
1. 3-D desktop, sure it may not be the most funtional thing, but it can sure perswade people to switch
2. Customized installs. For example, you should be able to install a ~4 GB full install with everything, or a ~1 GB minimal install with only the GUI and some programs
3. Themes. More then just a theme that makes it look like Vista, or 95, include various themes, make it look like an old school mac, or perhaps a bit like OS X.
4. -O3 for OEMs, for OEMs, MS should compile software -O3 so it is faster
5. Virtual desktops, why MS hasn't been including them is beyond me, they seem really easy to code
Really though, the killer app of Linux is. Customization. For MS to get more marketshare, you need to be able to customize everything on it. From the kernel to the GUI.
Not really. If you look at the Linux support for both nVidia and ATI you will find that they are both lacking. And Intel isn't much of competition for them because, even though they are commonly used, they aren't as high-end as nVidia or ATI's offerings.
Or does nVidia still lack competition on the Linux front?
They still have Intel to deal with though. Granted, Intel's graphics cards are usually lower end than nVidia and ATI's cards, but even with nVidia you still have to configure things, with Intel its simply install it and it works.
I never used Hulu until this weekend. I am very impressed with it's execution. Sorry to hear that it isn't available outside the US. I suspect the reason people haven't heard of it is because it took a long time for networks to realize they could make money by making their shows available on the internet. Here in the US it was big news when it debuted, it even made the Slashdot front page.
I live in the US:) however even though I do remember its launch as some sort of "YouTube killer" but it quickly faded to obscurity. But what I was getting at about the US only, was that it would make it hard, if not impossible to find more fans for the shows. And the more fans, the more $$$ they make.
And how many people go to Hulu compared to YouTube? No one I know ever goes to Hulu, in fact I had to Wikipedia it to see what it even was. And from the Wikipedia article
Hulu videos are currently offered only to users in the United States.[3]
that nearly negates the effect of the internet in building a fanbase.
If their 'business model is dead' (yawn) then you should be happy to see the product of such a dinosaur-system of content removed from youtube...
You can't have it both ways.
It is the distribution model that is dead. And so this is taking out the old distribution model from the show, and put it in the new, better model of distributing shows.
Your tone suggests you know more about the video content industry than Viacom do, which suggests you must own a multi-billion dollar business right?
No, but I do probobly know more about the nature of the internet than Viacom does. As so most of us here on/. .
Could it not be that they *do* know how much they have to lose from having their content on youtube, and that they *do* know how much it gets them in terms of advertising, and have decided that they would prefer not to have that content available free for damned good business reasons.
It could. But being as Viacom never put anything on YouTube they obviously couldn't have figured out how much money it would have made. And given from their tones about the lawsuit, many many people watched Viacom materiel on YouTube, if anything else that would mean that they have that much to gain in pure profit by uploading to YouTube.
yes because people won't go to a bunch of different sites to view their news....
Nope, most people I know either go to news.google.com or some TV news station. Only a few go Digg or/. and very few check all of the sites.
or their forum tastes.....
Valid point, but very few people who aren't geeks like us here on/. really go to more then 1-2 forums regularly. And a lot aren't even members of any forums.
people have these things called bookmarks.
and if they can easily and freely view content from a viacom subsidiary, even with ads in place, they will.
Yes, but if Viacom won't even put shows on YouTube which is very easy to view things, and just about as secure as you can get (the FLVs are an absolute pain to convert to anything readable) why would Viacom's website be easier or could it be easier?
so if viacom wants to setup a website for each subsidiary, or even each show, and on said website display ads, and offer video's of their content, with embedded ads, they can.
if a copy of said content is uploaded to youtube without ads, then this is again, a classic case of copyright infringement and it has the effect of lowering their revenue.
But wouldn't it just be easier for Viacom to upload in multiple places such at their website and YouTube? For example when I search for just about any music video, I get the band's official video first and later the fan-uploaded ones. So which is the average person going to click on? Generally the first one. Meaning, then Viacom loses little to no revenue. In fact it could be said that Viacom loses more revenue from a person changing the channel during a commercial then they would via YouTube because TV ads are generally much more expensive then web ads.
generally agree with this and several other comments you've made here. But just to play devil's advocate... what about scarcity? If supply and demand set pricing in a market, controlling access to a piece of media reduces its availability. By controlling supply, theoretically they can get a higher price in return (ie, the TV ad spots will go for more than the web ads).
Ah, but you are forgetting one thing. Premiers. There is a reason that Super Bowl ads run outrageous prices, not because it will only be shown once, but because people will watch it the first time it shows. Season premiers along with season finales are a great way for Viacom to rack up TV ad revenue. No one will care if it is the end/beginning of a season when it goes to reruns. And I am assuming that Viacom won't put the episode online for, say a week after it gets broadcast. So yes, the web ads will not have enough profit margin, but how many people watch the end to a cliffhanger of their favorite show on TV? Just about everyone, so by putting content online they don't risk the high-yield TV ads.
Here's a hint: Google will lose.
Sell your stock now.
Here's a hint: Viacom won't win
You should have sold your stock long ago
Just because Google loses doesn't mean that Viacom wins. Viacom is a dying company that has shown with prior actions and this lawsuit they can't adapt to the changing media environment. Google has throughout the years managed to constantly evolve to the changing internet. And the internet is the most hostile of all markets, anyone can create a search engine, unlike in media where you need a large studio, someway to broadcast it, and ad revenue.
Google may lose. But you can bet that Viacom won't win.
If Viacom-owned IP addresses were uploading Viacom's IP to YouTube, don't you think Google would have pointed that out by now in its lawsuit?
Or you know, if Google knew that, it would be better to wait near the end of this before proving that they did that. Plus, can't Google sue for entrapment if during this lawsuit a Viacom employee put some Viacom owned content on YouTube? I think it is more to Google's advantage to wait for a while.
Viacom wants to use YouTube-esque short clips of its videos as a revenue source. And, if Google's employees are uploading infringing content, then YouTube may be actively hampering Viacom's ability to earn ad revenue from its original works.
And how will this work? If it is ads, then just make a deal with Google to display ads and Viacom gets a slice of the profit. Because no one is going to go to 5 different sites go get videos.
While it would be nice to think that was the case, I don't think it's really happening yet. Sure, people will go and watch a few user created videos when there's nothing new to read on Slashdot during their lunch break, but I can't see the family gathering round the computer to watch "Jim's Low Budget Talent Show" in the same way as they would for "The X-Factor".
No, but think about how many people make and watch say, fan-made music videos. And think of all the internet memes that have happened because of user-made content. Sure, user-made content won't have the same appeal as major shows, but I think that a lot of people spend an hour watching user-made content and might watch 2 hours of "normal" TV.
Maybe Viacom (and anyone else) want to be able to decide where their work shows and how much money it makes.
Umm... Lets see. Which is going to get more views, either A) an episode that gets shown on TV say 10 times a year or B) the same episode that is online for viewing 24/7. More views == more money, granted, online distribution has a slightly lower profit margin, but it also has slightly lower costs.
And by regulating, who can see their work, they are missing out on a whole bunch of fans. Anime proved this. Sure, people download anime from Japan, translate it and repost it, but as the Anime studios figured out, this lead to more fans so they could release the English language Anime and have a fanbase.
Why would someone download video clips with embedded ads if there were another source for the same clips without the ads?
Why would someone use an OS that is proprietary and expensive when there is a free OS that is open source and costs nothing? Convenience. Same idea here, people will go where it is convenient, be it Viacom's site, YouTube or TPB.
What Viacom is doing is absolutely pointless. Want to make money? Have free downloads of *all* your shows on your website. And upload a bunch on YouTube too, why? Because YouTube is an easy way to watch videos, and I believe that Google will pay you to have ads in your videos.
I think a laptop would be over that amount almost by default.
Well, it depends, Ive had a few $500 laptops and I am typing this on my EEE PC which is $350. But for the laptop the police could simply say that you lost it and are panicking and to call back X-days later, when a thief could wipe the HD, install pirated XP and sell it.
No, its more like saying, you have the key, no one else can open it. Which I suppose that someone could cut off the locks, and open whatever you have locked. But the possibility of that would be lower then if you gave the key to 10 other people.
And it is no more of a challenge then saying that your browser is open source, that means that no one can force you to upgrade it.
Why exactly would this NOT work on a desktop? Or a UMPC? Or a ULCPC?
It would work. But UMPCs and ULCPCs are usually put into the category of laptops. And laptops have slowly become to mean, something that is a computer and mobile.
As for desktops, who carries a desktop around? Most people I know leave them at home. And if your house is broken into, you usually have a lot more to worry about then just your desktop being stolen. Plus, if there is evidence that your home was broken into, the police are going to be a lot more alert and through then if your laptop was taken.
No, but Windows is the most used OS. And a lot of Windows people cry when they use Linux because not everything is as good as Windows and in the list of "problems" (and 99% of the "problems" are simply differences) of Linux they cite the lack of UI standardization as a big problem to Linux adoption, yet the most used OS doesn't even have a standard UI.
Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?
on
Linux 2.6.26 Out
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The entire operating system is GNU/Linux -
No, I think the entire operating system is GNU/Linux/X/Mozilla/QT/GTK/*insert favorite WM*/whatever else. If you refer to the entire OS as GNU/Linux, you are neglecting other key parts of the OS. If you call Windows NT, just NT there is no problems with it, the various divisions of MS don't call it Windows/DOS/NT do they? Linux is the name of the kernel, NT is the name of another kernel, yet I see both being referred to as Linux or NT, the difference is MS isn't always correcting you.
Yes, but I find it hard to believe that when so many QT applications are unstable whereas the GTK alternatives are more stable that this is just a developer problem.
I think the original point of GNOME is already moot. Just let it die, with all its braindead file selection dialogs and reversed OK and Cancel buttons too.
Myself, I prefer GTK and GNOME to QT and KDE. First off, I don't like the KDE interface, the big K button (I think it is called the kicker...) is cluttered much like the Windows one. Whereas in GNOME its easy to make it be 3 different buttons cutting down on clutter quite a bit. Also, GNOME seems much more solid and stable to KDE, and QT applications less stable then the GNOME alternatives. But, in the end they both benefit from each other, if you want KDE stick with KDE, I prefer GNOME so I should stay with GNOME.
For me, QT applications just don't seem that stable. Very few GTK applications have crashed on me yet QT applications seem to segfault like there is no tomorrow.
Slashdot Mirror
Here are 5 features from Linux that MS should include...
1. 3-D desktop, sure it may not be the most funtional thing, but it can sure perswade people to switch
2. Customized installs. For example, you should be able to install a ~4 GB full install with everything, or a ~1 GB minimal install with only the GUI and some programs
3. Themes. More then just a theme that makes it look like Vista, or 95, include various themes, make it look like an old school mac, or perhaps a bit like OS X.
4. -O3 for OEMs, for OEMs, MS should compile software -O3 so it is faster
5. Virtual desktops, why MS hasn't been including them is beyond me, they seem really easy to code
Really though, the killer app of Linux is. Customization. For MS to get more marketshare, you need to be able to customize everything on it. From the kernel to the GUI.
Competition = good news for the consumer.
Not really. If you look at the Linux support for both nVidia and ATI you will find that they are both lacking. And Intel isn't much of competition for them because, even though they are commonly used, they aren't as high-end as nVidia or ATI's offerings.
Or does nVidia still lack competition on the Linux front?
They still have Intel to deal with though. Granted, Intel's graphics cards are usually lower end than nVidia and ATI's cards, but even with nVidia you still have to configure things, with Intel its simply install it and it works.
I never used Hulu until this weekend. I am very impressed with it's execution. Sorry to hear that it isn't available outside the US. I suspect the reason people haven't heard of it is because it took a long time for networks to realize they could make money by making their shows available on the internet. Here in the US it was big news when it debuted, it even made the Slashdot front page.
I live in the US :) however even though I do remember its launch as some sort of "YouTube killer" but it quickly faded to obscurity. But what I was getting at about the US only, was that it would make it hard, if not impossible to find more fans for the shows. And the more fans, the more $$$ they make.
Hulu already did it.
And how many people go to Hulu compared to YouTube? No one I know ever goes to Hulu, in fact I had to Wikipedia it to see what it even was. And from the Wikipedia article
Hulu videos are currently offered only to users in the United States.[3]
that nearly negates the effect of the internet in building a fanbase.
If their 'business model is dead' (yawn) then you should be happy to see the product of such a dinosaur-system of content removed from youtube... You can't have it both ways.
It is the distribution model that is dead. And so this is taking out the old distribution model from the show, and put it in the new, better model of distributing shows.
Your tone suggests you know more about the video content industry than Viacom do, which suggests you must own a multi-billion dollar business right?
No, but I do probobly know more about the nature of the internet than Viacom does. As so most of us here on /. .
Could it not be that they *do* know how much they have to lose from having their content on youtube, and that they *do* know how much it gets them in terms of advertising, and have decided that they would prefer not to have that content available free for damned good business reasons.
It could. But being as Viacom never put anything on YouTube they obviously couldn't have figured out how much money it would have made. And given from their tones about the lawsuit, many many people watched Viacom materiel on YouTube, if anything else that would mean that they have that much to gain in pure profit by uploading to YouTube.
yes because people won't go to a bunch of different sites to view their news....
Nope, most people I know either go to news.google.com or some TV news station. Only a few go Digg or /. and very few check all of the sites.
or their forum tastes.....
Valid point, but very few people who aren't geeks like us here on /. really go to more then 1-2 forums regularly. And a lot aren't even members of any forums.
people have these things called bookmarks. and if they can easily and freely view content from a viacom subsidiary, even with ads in place, they will.
Yes, but if Viacom won't even put shows on YouTube which is very easy to view things, and just about as secure as you can get (the FLVs are an absolute pain to convert to anything readable) why would Viacom's website be easier or could it be easier?
so if viacom wants to setup a website for each subsidiary, or even each show, and on said website display ads, and offer video's of their content, with embedded ads, they can. if a copy of said content is uploaded to youtube without ads, then this is again, a classic case of copyright infringement and it has the effect of lowering their revenue.
But wouldn't it just be easier for Viacom to upload in multiple places such at their website and YouTube? For example when I search for just about any music video, I get the band's official video first and later the fan-uploaded ones. So which is the average person going to click on? Generally the first one. Meaning, then Viacom loses little to no revenue. In fact it could be said that Viacom loses more revenue from a person changing the channel during a commercial then they would via YouTube because TV ads are generally much more expensive then web ads.
generally agree with this and several other comments you've made here. But just to play devil's advocate ... what about scarcity? If supply and demand set pricing in a market, controlling access to a piece of media reduces its availability. By controlling supply, theoretically they can get a higher price in return (ie, the TV ad spots will go for more than the web ads).
Ah, but you are forgetting one thing. Premiers. There is a reason that Super Bowl ads run outrageous prices, not because it will only be shown once, but because people will watch it the first time it shows. Season premiers along with season finales are a great way for Viacom to rack up TV ad revenue. No one will care if it is the end/beginning of a season when it goes to reruns. And I am assuming that Viacom won't put the episode online for, say a week after it gets broadcast. So yes, the web ads will not have enough profit margin, but how many people watch the end to a cliffhanger of their favorite show on TV? Just about everyone, so by putting content online they don't risk the high-yield TV ads.
Here's a hint: Google will lose. Sell your stock now.
Here's a hint: Viacom won't win
You should have sold your stock long ago
Just because Google loses doesn't mean that Viacom wins. Viacom is a dying company that has shown with prior actions and this lawsuit they can't adapt to the changing media environment. Google has throughout the years managed to constantly evolve to the changing internet. And the internet is the most hostile of all markets, anyone can create a search engine, unlike in media where you need a large studio, someway to broadcast it, and ad revenue.
Google may lose. But you can bet that Viacom won't win.
If Viacom-owned IP addresses were uploading Viacom's IP to YouTube, don't you think Google would have pointed that out by now in its lawsuit?
Or you know, if Google knew that, it would be better to wait near the end of this before proving that they did that. Plus, can't Google sue for entrapment if during this lawsuit a Viacom employee put some Viacom owned content on YouTube? I think it is more to Google's advantage to wait for a while.
Viacom wants to use YouTube-esque short clips of its videos as a revenue source. And, if Google's employees are uploading infringing content, then YouTube may be actively hampering Viacom's ability to earn ad revenue from its original works.
And how will this work? If it is ads, then just make a deal with Google to display ads and Viacom gets a slice of the profit. Because no one is going to go to 5 different sites go get videos.
While it would be nice to think that was the case, I don't think it's really happening yet. Sure, people will go and watch a few user created videos when there's nothing new to read on Slashdot during their lunch break, but I can't see the family gathering round the computer to watch "Jim's Low Budget Talent Show" in the same way as they would for "The X-Factor".
No, but think about how many people make and watch say, fan-made music videos. And think of all the internet memes that have happened because of user-made content. Sure, user-made content won't have the same appeal as major shows, but I think that a lot of people spend an hour watching user-made content and might watch 2 hours of "normal" TV.
Maybe Viacom (and anyone else) want to be able to decide where their work shows and how much money it makes.
Umm... Lets see. Which is going to get more views, either A) an episode that gets shown on TV say 10 times a year or B) the same episode that is online for viewing 24/7. More views == more money, granted, online distribution has a slightly lower profit margin, but it also has slightly lower costs.
And by regulating, who can see their work, they are missing out on a whole bunch of fans. Anime proved this. Sure, people download anime from Japan, translate it and repost it, but as the Anime studios figured out, this lead to more fans so they could release the English language Anime and have a fanbase.
Why would someone download video clips with embedded ads if there were another source for the same clips without the ads?
Why would someone use an OS that is proprietary and expensive when there is a free OS that is open source and costs nothing? Convenience. Same idea here, people will go where it is convenient, be it Viacom's site, YouTube or TPB.
What Viacom is doing is absolutely pointless. Want to make money? Have free downloads of *all* your shows on your website. And upload a bunch on YouTube too, why? Because YouTube is an easy way to watch videos, and I believe that Google will pay you to have ads in your videos.
I think a laptop would be over that amount almost by default.
Well, it depends, Ive had a few $500 laptops and I am typing this on my EEE PC which is $350. But for the laptop the police could simply say that you lost it and are panicking and to call back X-days later, when a thief could wipe the HD, install pirated XP and sell it.
No, its more like saying, you have the key, no one else can open it. Which I suppose that someone could cut off the locks, and open whatever you have locked. But the possibility of that would be lower then if you gave the key to 10 other people.
And it is no more of a challenge then saying that your browser is open source, that means that no one can force you to upgrade it.
Why exactly would this NOT work on a desktop? Or a UMPC? Or a ULCPC?
It would work. But UMPCs and ULCPCs are usually put into the category of laptops. And laptops have slowly become to mean, something that is a computer and mobile.
As for desktops, who carries a desktop around? Most people I know leave them at home. And if your house is broken into, you usually have a lot more to worry about then just your desktop being stolen. Plus, if there is evidence that your home was broken into, the police are going to be a lot more alert and through then if your laptop was taken.
No, but Windows is the most used OS. And a lot of Windows people cry when they use Linux because not everything is as good as Windows and in the list of "problems" (and 99% of the "problems" are simply differences) of Linux they cite the lack of UI standardization as a big problem to Linux adoption, yet the most used OS doesn't even have a standard UI.
The entire operating system is GNU/Linux -
No, I think the entire operating system is GNU/Linux/X/Mozilla/QT/GTK/*insert favorite WM*/whatever else. If you refer to the entire OS as GNU/Linux, you are neglecting other key parts of the OS. If you call Windows NT, just NT there is no problems with it, the various divisions of MS don't call it Windows/DOS/NT do they? Linux is the name of the kernel, NT is the name of another kernel, yet I see both being referred to as Linux or NT, the difference is MS isn't always correcting you.
Yes, if you run it in WINE.
Blame the developer, not the library.
Yes, but I find it hard to believe that when so many QT applications are unstable whereas the GTK alternatives are more stable that this is just a developer problem.
I think the original point of GNOME is already moot. Just let it die, with all its braindead file selection dialogs and reversed OK and Cancel buttons too.
Myself, I prefer GTK and GNOME to QT and KDE. First off, I don't like the KDE interface, the big K button (I think it is called the kicker...) is cluttered much like the Windows one. Whereas in GNOME its easy to make it be 3 different buttons cutting down on clutter quite a bit. Also, GNOME seems much more solid and stable to KDE, and QT applications less stable then the GNOME alternatives. But, in the end they both benefit from each other, if you want KDE stick with KDE, I prefer GNOME so I should stay with GNOME.
For me, QT applications just don't seem that stable. Very few GTK applications have crashed on me yet QT applications seem to segfault like there is no tomorrow.