I can understand where you are coming from, I'm sure almost everyone who reads usenet or goes into IRC channels graons at one time or another when they see that Joe17890@aol.com wants to know how to plug in a printer again. Newbies can be a pain, I know. But people really should believe the hype about computers, because they aren't just tools for doing things; they can really alter the way you live. And to say that some people would be better off just not using them at all, makes you either slightly elitist, or a Luddite. Computers aren't just about email or web shopping, they are about the era we are entering. Nobody, but nobody, should be denied, either in principle, or in practice, access to a computer. That is precisely what is going to widen the "Information Gap," and the net effect will be that those without the information will be the new slave class in our society. If I had my way, we'd cut the national budget in half, and use the leftovers to provide everyone with a computer. I really do believe that in the coming century, it will be THAT important.
I mean that in purely the sense of the OS on a workstation. I'm not a Linux zealot, but even I would be crazy if I said that for servers, Win2000 is better. Even with all the improvements (and Win2K is a huge leap beyond NT 4), I don't think it provides the lean resource usage and rock-solid stability of Linux. I may be wrong, but only time will tell. As far as workstation use, I really do think that in a majority of office environments, Win2K Pro and MacOS X will provide a better interface than Linux. Of course, I'm not a Mac person, so I'm just going by the limited exposure I have to OS X here, but I use Win2K right now, and for the consumer or professional desktop, I really don't think there is anything better for the PC platform. It has better Hardware support than Linux, is as stable as Linux (at least for what I do with it), it supports every current game I've tried to play with it, it has useability and management features far beyond the Win9x line, and NT workstation. If Linux ever wants to become a desktop OS, the community is going to have to take a really hard look at the competition, and come up with something more compelling than "free" and "not Microsoft" in order for it to gain marketshare.
I guess what I was thinking was that there could be a "consumerized" version of XF86. I mean, since everything in Linux is of a modular nature anyway, why not have a version of XF86 that did away with some of the more complicated aspects, and made it more friendly for the average Joe to use and configure. And of course, the experts could still have the regular XF86. I just think this is kind of the problem with Linux as a whole; there is simply a lot of stuff there that most people (again, consumers) never use. Of course that is simply a distro-specific issue, but the fight against software bloat is an issue that everyone, regardless of preferred OS, needs to pay attention to.
Its not a legitimate defense because you didn't actually store anything with them, other than a "certificate" saying you owned a certain work. The bitstream you listen to though is sent to you, from them. You aren't actually hearing your CD or MP3. For instance, if you encoded your MP3s at 80kbps, they'll sound like crap. But from your LAN at work, you are able to listen to nice 160kbps versions of your MP3s. But the actual files aren't the same, therefore they are sending you the music for free, which is illegal, and which is probably the finding that the judge in the court case will end up with. On the other hand, this might be good for all the industries involved, if for nothing more than establishing some legal guidlines as to what is and isn't allowed to happen to digital music.
While Windows is far from perfect, and MS has their head up their ass if they think their business practices aren't predatory, I beg to differ with your statement about Windows being pathetically non-functional. In fact it is more functional, and doesn't require as much tedious administration as Linux. If all I wanted was to sit around with my thumb up my ass hacking text files all day (and occasionally, I do enjoy that), then Linux would be fine. For the time being, and the forseeable future, Linux will be a dual or triple-boot toy that I occasionally play with. To call the Operating System that 80% of the desktop computers in the world use (and has a decent, UNIFORM interface) non-functional is ludicrous. Looks like MS isn't the only one who likes to spread FUD.
But if OSS is just a toy to you and other OSS enthusiasts, why do so many of you treat it like a religion? You can't have it both ways - it's either something for programmers to play with, and not any actual competition to the big boys like MS, or its truly a new way of thinking about software, and should be evangelized to every large company in the world. Make up your minds people!
Welcome to the wonderful world of "I'm a god cuz I can program...stay away from computers because their only for the intellectual elite like myself" Good thing the world at large didn't agree with Hitler (another great elitist) that LIFE ISN'T FOR EVERYONE.
OSS/Linux zealots can't have it both ways. On the one hand, they are always bashing MS and Windows as inferior products, and trying to convince the world that Linux is the only true way to OS utopia. But on the other hand, they start talking all sorts of crap when it comes to the question of what to do about the GUI. If the majority of the OSS community thinks OSS is better than commercial software, then they need to put their money where their mouth is and make it easier for all the misguided souls that use commercial software to switch to OSS. For all the FUD that OSS geeks spread about MS and other large companies, you have to hand them one thing, at least they are trying to make software that a normal human being can use without buying a new library of books.
Its precisely this sort of elitist attitude that makes many in people who use computers, whether with windows or mac os, really dislike Linux users. The point isn't whats better for hackers, If you had any sense of humanity at all, you'd see that the objective is to give the world an OS thats better for the world at large than any other OS out there. This sort of thing needs to be taken seriously now that we are living in the information age. It isn't about giving geeks something to play with so the rest of the world doesn't "bore" them anymore.
One of the cooler things that recent versions of Windows have done is make it so that once you click on a menu button, the menu (and submenus you have opened) stays out until you click the mouse to change focus someplace else. This makes it easy if you missed a menu or submenu to go back to it quickly, without the whole menu structure disappearing because your mouse wasn't hovering over it anymore.
The problem is precisely that rather than making computers work according to the real world rules that we have become accustomed to throught our live, most software tries to make us use it the way the programmer thinks it should work, or according to "computer rules" which are entirely different than the rules that are used in the real world. OSS UI designers need to seriously sit down with some people who understand the relationship between the natural world, and the way humans do things.
That's why if any company were ever to get serious about unseating Microsloth, the only thing it would take is a powerful operating system that can learn about what you know how to do, and hide complexity above your current level accordingly, while providing appropriate help when you need it. If it's ever done, the guy who comes up with it will be the next Bill G.
And I'm afraid you missed the point of the article entirely. The point is that developers have to go farther and do some research via focus groups, extensive beta testing, irc/usenet/email contacts, etc. Its easy to sit back and say "what, specifically, is your problem with my program?" That isn't going to get anyone anywhere, because thats the way the open source world works now. And its broken. The problem isn't that there are specific little problems that affect Linux and all that its releated to. The problem is that the whole damn thing is the problem! The problem lies in the fact that geeks and hackers live in a very different world from the rest of society. What comes as simple and obvious as breathing to us never occurs to most people. I know, because I live on both sides of the fence. I'm a hardware geek, and am very good at working on hardware/OS issues. But when it comes to the real guts of programs and Operating Systems, and their attendant interfaces, I'm in many cases as clueless as the general public. I can explain to someone how to install a new hard drive in 15 mins, and I can see the problems that most people have with something I consider child's play. But I have a lot of trouble "using" Linux, and the reason is that you hacker types don't realize that the rest of the world might not find configuring X and KDE or some other window manager to do anything useful isn't just a walk in the park. I've read two LARGE books about Linux and still feel about as comfortable using it as I do pulling my own teeth. And I'm a relatively intelligent person as far as technology. Where does that leave the average construction worker who wants to be able to get email from his kid going to an overpriced college out of state? These people aren't going to ever be using Linux without training, unless the community does something to fix the problem. And doing something means going beyond saying "do you have problems with icons?" and "is there something wrong with the menus?" It means, quit using places like Slashdot as your "focus group" and go hire a real one. That's the only way the open source community will ever make it out of the server room in the basement.
I think the point of the article isn't that interfaces can't be fixed under the current system, but that whether it "can" happen or not, it isn't happening, or at least not in any sort of timely fashion. The guys putting the next versions of KDE and Gnome together I'm sure are doing a wonderful job, but the problem that is happening with open source software is that the for the most part, people are doing the programming for free. That means that they don't have such things as deadlines, and in many cases don't have time to really move a project quickly because they must also earn a living. The only features in Linux that move fairly quickly are the technical features that the hackers really enjoy tackling. Meanwhile, people who check into Linux find out that while its pretty nifty and all, its light-years behind such advanced OS like Win2000 Pro and MacOSX as far as useability. Any interface/GUI designer with a brain should be looking at those two Operating Systems, because that's where the future is, and if Linux (or any open source software directed at consumers) wants to be a serious player, then it's catch-up time.
But that really is kind of the problem from a useability standpoint. X has the capability do handle displaying things on the screen, but that isn't really it's main mission. If someone ever came out with something like X that does away with all the "multi-user" interface crap that the average person will never use, and make it easy to configure without knowing every refresh rate and resolution your monitor can handle, they'd go a long way towards providing a streamlined foundation for the various Linux GUIs. For instance, why is it that in Windows, changing your monitor is as easy as pointing the OS at an INF file that lists resolutions and refresh rates, but nobody has come up with anything similar for Linux? Its just a simple text file, and it just works...but then thats what Windows/MacOS excel at, and the reason 90% of consumers wouldn't think of touching Linux.
Ok, so maybe it isn't "broadcasting" since that term seems to bring more to mind radio or tv, both of which are open to the public (for the most part.) What they are doing definitely falls under the heading of distribution though. And the argument that everyone is making about "its only ones and zeros, not actual music" is false. Look into the laws that were developed around the same time CDs first came out. Those ones and zeros are the music, in the eyes of the law. What mp3.com is doing isn't all that different than HBO or the other premium cable channels. Except one major difference. HBO charges the customers, and pays for the content, including a license to transmit that content into homes. And you can bet your ass that mp3.com didn't pay anywhere close to that kind of money for the same sort of privilege. Don't get me wrong, I love mp3 as much as anyone, and Napster is one of my favorite programs. But my feeling is that mp3.com crossed a line; it will have major consequences, and not necessarily good ones.
I don't see why mp3.com doesn't just drop the whole thing, and shut down my.mp3.com. Am I the only one here who thinks that mp3.com's new program is pretty useless anyway? I mean, there are very few places I go other than my computer room where I would have both the desire to listen to my music, and an internet connection to get to via mp3.com. If a company wants to do something really useful, make me a portable mp3 player that can read mp3s from a cd-r. Or a car player that can do the same. Or a streaming server/player combo that would enable me to stream my mp3s from home to my workplace. Those might be useful technologies. But the my.mp3.com thing is way to restricted with what they can marginally get away with to be of any real use. Plus it requires an internet connection, and those aren't pervasive enough yet for this sort of technology.
Redistributing is exactly what they are doing. Imagine: I give you a phone call and ask if you own a certain movie (lets say The Matrix). You tell me you do. Great. I tell you that I work for a public access television station, but that for you to recieve the station, I'm going to send you, and only you, a filter box that you can install on any tv you want, then you can watch the station. Once you have the box in place, I go into the station's production studio and pop my copy of The Matrix into the vcr, and BROADCAST it to you. See where I'm going? mp3.com may own a legit copy of a work. You might own a copy also. But those copies both come with an implied, and in the case of videotape an explicit rule that neither they, nor you can broadcast via a private or public medium, the work in question. mp3.com's only real hope is getting a judge who wants to shake up the current system, because under current law, I don't think they have a leg to stand on here.
Slashdot Mirror
I can understand where you are coming from, I'm sure almost everyone who reads usenet or goes into IRC channels graons at one time or another when they see that Joe17890@aol.com wants to know how to plug in a printer again. Newbies can be a pain, I know. But people really should believe the hype about computers, because they aren't just tools for doing things; they can really alter the way you live. And to say that some people would be better off just not using them at all, makes you either slightly elitist, or a Luddite. Computers aren't just about email or web shopping, they are about the era we are entering. Nobody, but nobody, should be denied, either in principle, or in practice, access to a computer. That is precisely what is going to widen the "Information Gap," and the net effect will be that those without the information will be the new slave class in our society. If I had my way, we'd cut the national budget in half, and use the leftovers to provide everyone with a computer. I really do believe that in the coming century, it will be THAT important.
I mean that in purely the sense of the OS on a workstation. I'm not a Linux zealot, but even I would be crazy if I said that for servers, Win2000 is better. Even with all the improvements (and Win2K is a huge leap beyond NT 4), I don't think it provides the lean resource usage and rock-solid stability of Linux. I may be wrong, but only time will tell. As far as workstation use, I really do think that in a majority of office environments, Win2K Pro and MacOS X will provide a better interface than Linux. Of course, I'm not a Mac person, so I'm just going by the limited exposure I have to OS X here, but I use Win2K right now, and for the consumer or professional desktop, I really don't think there is anything better for the PC platform. It has better Hardware support than Linux, is as stable as Linux (at least for what I do with it), it supports every current game I've tried to play with it, it has useability and management features far beyond the Win9x line, and NT workstation. If Linux ever wants to become a desktop OS, the community is going to have to take a really hard look at the competition, and come up with something more compelling than "free" and "not Microsoft" in order for it to gain marketshare.
I guess what I was thinking was that there could be a "consumerized" version of XF86. I mean, since everything in Linux is of a modular nature anyway, why not have a version of XF86 that did away with some of the more complicated aspects, and made it more friendly for the average Joe to use and configure. And of course, the experts could still have the regular XF86. I just think this is kind of the problem with Linux as a whole; there is simply a lot of stuff there that most people (again, consumers) never use. Of course that is simply a distro-specific issue, but the fight against software bloat is an issue that everyone, regardless of preferred OS, needs to pay attention to.
Its not a legitimate defense because you didn't actually store anything with them, other than a "certificate" saying you owned a certain work. The bitstream you listen to though is sent to you, from them. You aren't actually hearing your CD or MP3. For instance, if you encoded your MP3s at 80kbps, they'll sound like crap. But from your LAN at work, you are able to listen to nice 160kbps versions of your MP3s. But the actual files aren't the same, therefore they are sending you the music for free, which is illegal, and which is probably the finding that the judge in the court case will end up with. On the other hand, this might be good for all the industries involved, if for nothing more than establishing some legal guidlines as to what is and isn't allowed to happen to digital music.
While Windows is far from perfect, and MS has their head up their ass if they think their business practices aren't predatory, I beg to differ with your statement about Windows being pathetically non-functional. In fact it is more functional, and doesn't require as much tedious administration as Linux. If all I wanted was to sit around with my thumb up my ass hacking text files all day (and occasionally, I do enjoy that), then Linux would be fine. For the time being, and the forseeable future, Linux will be a dual or triple-boot toy that I occasionally play with. To call the Operating System that 80% of the desktop computers in the world use (and has a decent, UNIFORM interface) non-functional is ludicrous. Looks like MS isn't the only one who likes to spread FUD.
But if OSS is just a toy to you and other OSS enthusiasts, why do so many of you treat it like a religion? You can't have it both ways - it's either something for programmers to play with, and not any actual competition to the big boys like MS, or its truly a new way of thinking about software, and should be evangelized to every large company in the world. Make up your minds people!
Welcome to the wonderful world of "I'm a god cuz I can program...stay away from computers because their only for the intellectual elite like myself" Good thing the world at large didn't agree with Hitler (another great elitist) that LIFE ISN'T FOR EVERYONE.
OSS/Linux zealots can't have it both ways. On the one hand, they are always bashing MS and Windows as inferior products, and trying to convince the world that Linux is the only true way to OS utopia. But on the other hand, they start talking all sorts of crap when it comes to the question of what to do about the GUI. If the majority of the OSS community thinks OSS is better than commercial software, then they need to put their money where their mouth is and make it easier for all the misguided souls that use commercial software to switch to OSS. For all the FUD that OSS geeks spread about MS and other large companies, you have to hand them one thing, at least they are trying to make software that a normal human being can use without buying a new library of books.
Its precisely this sort of elitist attitude that makes many in people who use computers, whether with windows or mac os, really dislike Linux users. The point isn't whats better for hackers, If you had any sense of humanity at all, you'd see that the objective is to give the world an OS thats better for the world at large than any other OS out there. This sort of thing needs to be taken seriously now that we are living in the information age. It isn't about giving geeks something to play with so the rest of the world doesn't "bore" them anymore.
One of the cooler things that recent versions of Windows have done is make it so that once you click on a menu button, the menu (and submenus you have opened) stays out until you click the mouse to change focus someplace else. This makes it easy if you missed a menu or submenu to go back to it quickly, without the whole menu structure disappearing because your mouse wasn't hovering over it anymore.
The problem is precisely that rather than making computers work according to the real world rules that we have become accustomed to throught our live, most software tries to make us use it the way the programmer thinks it should work, or according to "computer rules" which are entirely different than the rules that are used in the real world. OSS UI designers need to seriously sit down with some people who understand the relationship between the natural world, and the way humans do things.
That's why if any company were ever to get serious about unseating Microsloth, the only thing it would take is a powerful operating system that can learn about what you know how to do, and hide complexity above your current level accordingly, while providing appropriate help when you need it. If it's ever done, the guy who comes up with it will be the next Bill G.
And I'm afraid you missed the point of the article entirely. The point is that developers have to go farther and do some research via focus groups, extensive beta testing, irc/usenet/email contacts, etc. Its easy to sit back and say "what, specifically, is your problem with my program?" That isn't going to get anyone anywhere, because thats the way the open source world works now. And its broken. The problem isn't that there are specific little problems that affect Linux and all that its releated to. The problem is that the whole damn thing is the problem! The problem lies in the fact that geeks and hackers live in a very different world from the rest of society. What comes as simple and obvious as breathing to us never occurs to most people. I know, because I live on both sides of the fence. I'm a hardware geek, and am very good at working on hardware/OS issues. But when it comes to the real guts of programs and Operating Systems, and their attendant interfaces, I'm in many cases as clueless as the general public. I can explain to someone how to install a new hard drive in 15 mins, and I can see the problems that most people have with something I consider child's play. But I have a lot of trouble "using" Linux, and the reason is that you hacker types don't realize that the rest of the world might not find configuring X and KDE or some other window manager to do anything useful isn't just a walk in the park. I've read two LARGE books about Linux and still feel about as comfortable using it as I do pulling my own teeth. And I'm a relatively intelligent person as far as technology. Where does that leave the average construction worker who wants to be able to get email from his kid going to an overpriced college out of state? These people aren't going to ever be using Linux without training, unless the community does something to fix the problem. And doing something means going beyond saying "do you have problems with icons?" and "is there something wrong with the menus?" It means, quit using places like Slashdot as your "focus group" and go hire a real one. That's the only way the open source community will ever make it out of the server room in the basement.
I think the point of the article isn't that interfaces can't be fixed under the current system, but that whether it "can" happen or not, it isn't happening, or at least not in any sort of timely fashion. The guys putting the next versions of KDE and Gnome together I'm sure are doing a wonderful job, but the problem that is happening with open source software is that the for the most part, people are doing the programming for free. That means that they don't have such things as deadlines, and in many cases don't have time to really move a project quickly because they must also earn a living. The only features in Linux that move fairly quickly are the technical features that the hackers really enjoy tackling. Meanwhile, people who check into Linux find out that while its pretty nifty and all, its light-years behind such advanced OS like Win2000 Pro and MacOSX as far as useability. Any interface/GUI designer with a brain should be looking at those two Operating Systems, because that's where the future is, and if Linux (or any open source software directed at consumers) wants to be a serious player, then it's catch-up time.
But that really is kind of the problem from a useability standpoint. X has the capability do handle displaying things on the screen, but that isn't really it's main mission. If someone ever came out with something like X that does away with all the "multi-user" interface crap that the average person will never use, and make it easy to configure without knowing every refresh rate and resolution your monitor can handle, they'd go a long way towards providing a streamlined foundation for the various Linux GUIs. For instance, why is it that in Windows, changing your monitor is as easy as pointing the OS at an INF file that lists resolutions and refresh rates, but nobody has come up with anything similar for Linux? Its just a simple text file, and it just works...but then thats what Windows/MacOS excel at, and the reason 90% of consumers wouldn't think of touching Linux.
Ok, so maybe it isn't "broadcasting" since that term seems to bring more to mind radio or tv, both of which are open to the public (for the most part.) What they are doing definitely falls under the heading of distribution though. And the argument that everyone is making about "its only ones and zeros, not actual music" is false. Look into the laws that were developed around the same time CDs first came out. Those ones and zeros are the music, in the eyes of the law. What mp3.com is doing isn't all that different than HBO or the other premium cable channels. Except one major difference. HBO charges the customers, and pays for the content, including a license to transmit that content into homes. And you can bet your ass that mp3.com didn't pay anywhere close to that kind of money for the same sort of privilege. Don't get me wrong, I love mp3 as much as anyone, and Napster is one of my favorite programs. But my feeling is that mp3.com crossed a line; it will have major consequences, and not necessarily good ones.
I don't see why mp3.com doesn't just drop the whole thing, and shut down my.mp3.com. Am I the only one here who thinks that mp3.com's new program is pretty useless anyway? I mean, there are very few places I go other than my computer room where I would have both the desire to listen to my music, and an internet connection to get to via mp3.com. If a company wants to do something really useful, make me a portable mp3 player that can read mp3s from a cd-r. Or a car player that can do the same. Or a streaming server/player combo that would enable me to stream my mp3s from home to my workplace. Those might be useful technologies. But the my.mp3.com thing is way to restricted with what they can marginally get away with to be of any real use. Plus it requires an internet connection, and those aren't pervasive enough yet for this sort of technology.
Redistributing is exactly what they are doing. Imagine: I give you a phone call and ask if you own a certain movie (lets say The Matrix). You tell me you do. Great. I tell you that I work for a public access television station, but that for you to recieve the station, I'm going to send you, and only you, a filter box that you can install on any tv you want, then you can watch the station. Once you have the box in place, I go into the station's production studio and pop my copy of The Matrix into the vcr, and BROADCAST it to you. See where I'm going? mp3.com may own a legit copy of a work. You might own a copy also. But those copies both come with an implied, and in the case of videotape an explicit rule that neither they, nor you can broadcast via a private or public medium, the work in question. mp3.com's only real hope is getting a judge who wants to shake up the current system, because under current law, I don't think they have a leg to stand on here.