What I'm talking about is something like DMG files for Macs or MSI files for Windows. Nice and easy fall back install.
Uh, I use Arch Linux. Next to Gentoo it is one of the most barebones DIY distributions out there. I use my machine for many different things and tend to use development versions of a lot of software. I have not had to./configure && make && make install for well over a year now despite installing some stuff straight from GIT repositories.
Basically, what you are saying is a load of crap. You shouldn't have to compile anything from scratch unless no one has yet made a package for it (and they can make packages that automatically compile stuff from scratch in some distributions). Or you're a masochist in which case you should be using the Linux-from-scratch guide and not complaining anyway.
Here's another point, anyone can make a package up. So if you have found some obscure program that no one else has packaged yet.. do it yourself. It isn't a big job to maintain a package and if you're going to be using it anyway, well someone has to do it. It's kind of the whole point of the free software community, anything is possible as long as someone is willing to commit some time to it.
I do have an Asus EEE that came with Linux, I was just joking because they tend to make such a bad job of it. I had the Xandros distribution on for all of 5 minutes before I realised that it was horrible and put on Ubuntu. Now I am waiting for the new KDE netbook mix and then a finished moblin distribution.
The other point of course is the sort of thing this article is about, namely shops (like Dell) making sure no one accidentally buys a Linux machine unless they already know what Linux is.
It also sets up a Google repository so that it will continue to auto-update
Geez, I really do NOT like the way they do that however user friendly it is. Enabling a third party repository should be like [insert intimate relationship reference here], not something so casual.
Every non-technical Mac user I know never gets to step 3. They get to step 2, say "Oh, there's my app!" and double-click it. Which means they run Firefox out of a disk image for years at a time, and never upgrade, because the DMG is read-only and Firefox won't auto-update itself.
It's been such a long time since I used a Mac, that scenario never occurred to me. Priceless.
I think a good idea would be some way of specifying a repo and package in a hyperlink
I think most distributions (if not all) would see that as a big security no-no as well as a potential usability nightmare. Generally on support forums you are expected to tell people if you have a third party repository enabled and risk them washing their hands of the problem.
That isn't to say you couldn't achieve something similar by a different route, but the systems in place now would hardly take such unintended use.
I would advocate just letting the distributors handle it and encouraging them to allow for people managing select repositories of non-free software.
I'm looking forward to when PackagetKit development picks up pace. Currently it's pretty horrible to use compared to Synaptic but with features like PolicyKit integration it looks to be the future.
You know what, lets extend your logic to its conclusion. Now why can't Microsoft and Apple come up with a simple distribution system that works between the two of them? I mean, you're asking Linux which is technically a community consisting of many different companies and organisations to do so, and they have done so for years. You would hope that Microsoft and Apple, being so ahead of the game, would be able to do something at least as good.
Or maybe you can instead recognise that like Windows compatible binaries don't work on Mac's and vice versa because they are designed by completely different companies, different Linux distributions are going to have their own way of doing things. You should be congratulating them for having already solved your problem with the Linux Standard Base. Perhaps if you can convince Microsoft and Apple to switch to Linux we can all be one happy family.
why hasn't the Linux community come up with a simple install script/storage container that packs all the dirty stuff into one neat little package for easy distribution?
I disagree with use of the term 'opt-out'. You don't 'opt-out' of the cigarette tax when you don't smoke.
The rest of what you say makes sense, I agree that the way the BBC is set up largely keeps the government from interfering. I have to say I'm a little fed up with quite how many people talk nonsense about the licence fee when praising the BBC though. I wouldn't deny the BBC any of its merits, I would scrap the licence fee if I had half a chance regardless.
Taking a sample of 1000 people and then try to make an estimation about a population of about 61 million is, as I said, far too insignificant a number to allow for accurate predictions.
If you have a margin of error of 1% and a confidence level of 99% then 16000 would be about right for 61 million. However, firstly the story is about internet users not total population and secondly there is no indication that they were trying to be that accurate. 1072 is perfectly adequate sample size for a confidence level of 95% and an error margin of 3% with a population of 61 million.
I think the big point is that there isn't an actual paper to link to. The BBC radio guys phoned up the people who did the original survey and were told some of the figures over the phone along with an assurance that it was done properly. While that may be good enough for a commercial company who just want to quote a number a nice sounding number from a statistician, government should be a lot more careful about where they get their numbers.
I would recommend you listen to the BBC iPlayer link on TFA. When the government has its own statistics department (which was set up by this current government, not that long ago) they better damn well use it. If they did use it and these statistics are actually approved then the department need to be hit over the head with a cluebat for having no quality standards.
It sounds like the original publication was merely for some commercial interest. They should not have been used by the government in any way whatsoever. The government has a whole department devoted to statistics, there should be no excuse for this sort of thing and the sooner politicians come up with some sort of rulebook for verifying this sort of thing the better.
Since all I've seen are complaints from people who obviously don't know how statistics work, this is obviously not the case
What the hell? You're accusing others of being idiots and you come out with a statement like that? How does lots of people talking about something they don't know about validate the study in any way?
I really don't get why people are bothered about which way the number is pointing, it is completely irrelevant to whether piracy is good or bad. Unless of course you use the number to provide evidence that the piracy is having a harmful effect. I think the statistical likelihood of anyone using the number in that way is pretty insignificant though.
To me, the number is meaningless in itself. The fact that government agencies have been using the number is the issue. Either they knew that the number was wrong or they didn't bother checking it. Both possibilities can point to incompetence or malice and reflect very badly on the people responsible.
You might be happy with government by making shit up and gut feelings but for the rest of us this is a good example of why government has no respect.
Nice calculator, I think the GP's main point though was that there is no evidence of a properly selected sample. You would be right in saying that the sample size has very little to do with anything compared to whether the sample is biased or not.
Oh come on, the BBC have reported this number many times since it was first used and you sing their praises because Radio 4 happens to do a show devoted to statistics? I wonder just how much time they will devote to debunking this statistic considering how many times they have quoted it.
Just because the BBC is better than the US networks doesn't mean we should be proud, personally I'm appalled at how low the bar is set.
I concur, however before I paid for any BBC services I would want them to split those services up. I don't think my news should be subsidising entertainment or vice-versa. I think this is a key problem we see with most corporations (like Murdochs') and that it would be an important measure to preserve the integrity of the BBC in a free market.
As long as paying for BBC news gives Jeremy Clarkson a wage (and I do watch Topgear, my point is that I wouldn't pay to watch it), I will look for an independent service to support. This problem goes both ways.. I won't buy a Simpsons DVD as long as their network is Fox.
This is not only an issue of principle but one of economics. When you pay a corporation you are rarely supporting what you've paid for as much as you are funding the corporation's next moneymaking scheme. Free markets work best when the exchange of money for a product is not handled by a middleman with their own agenda.
Slashdot Mirror
What I'm talking about is something like DMG files for Macs or MSI files for Windows. Nice and easy fall back install.
Uh, I use Arch Linux. Next to Gentoo it is one of the most barebones DIY distributions out there. I use my machine for many different things and tend to use development versions of a lot of software. I have not had to ./configure && make && make install for well over a year now despite installing some stuff straight from GIT repositories.
Basically, what you are saying is a load of crap. You shouldn't have to compile anything from scratch unless no one has yet made a package for it (and they can make packages that automatically compile stuff from scratch in some distributions). Or you're a masochist in which case you should be using the Linux-from-scratch guide and not complaining anyway.
Here's another point, anyone can make a package up. So if you have found some obscure program that no one else has packaged yet.. do it yourself. It isn't a big job to maintain a package and if you're going to be using it anyway, well someone has to do it. It's kind of the whole point of the free software community, anything is possible as long as someone is willing to commit some time to it.
I do have an Asus EEE that came with Linux, I was just joking because they tend to make such a bad job of it. I had the Xandros distribution on for all of 5 minutes before I realised that it was horrible and put on Ubuntu. Now I am waiting for the new KDE netbook mix and then a finished moblin distribution.
The other point of course is the sort of thing this article is about, namely shops (like Dell) making sure no one accidentally buys a Linux machine unless they already know what Linux is.
real alternative to QuickBooks
Might I suggest looking at OpenERP?
most people aren't getting it preloaded
Did I fall asleep and wake up in another lecture? Somebody pre-loads Linux?!
It also sets up a Google repository so that it will continue to auto-update
Geez, I really do NOT like the way they do that however user friendly it is. Enabling a third party repository should be like [insert intimate relationship reference here], not something so casual.
Every non-technical Mac user I know never gets to step 3. They get to step 2, say "Oh, there's my app!" and double-click it. Which means they run Firefox out of a disk image for years at a time, and never upgrade, because the DMG is read-only and Firefox won't auto-update itself.
It's been such a long time since I used a Mac, that scenario never occurred to me. Priceless.
I think a good idea would be some way of specifying a repo and package in a hyperlink
I think most distributions (if not all) would see that as a big security no-no as well as a potential usability nightmare. Generally on support forums you are expected to tell people if you have a third party repository enabled and risk them washing their hands of the problem.
That isn't to say you couldn't achieve something similar by a different route, but the systems in place now would hardly take such unintended use.
I would advocate just letting the distributors handle it and encouraging them to allow for people managing select repositories of non-free software.
I'm looking forward to when PackagetKit development picks up pace. Currently it's pretty horrible to use compared to Synaptic but with features like PolicyKit integration it looks to be the future.
You know what, lets extend your logic to its conclusion. Now why can't Microsoft and Apple come up with a simple distribution system that works between the two of them? I mean, you're asking Linux which is technically a community consisting of many different companies and organisations to do so, and they have done so for years. You would hope that Microsoft and Apple, being so ahead of the game, would be able to do something at least as good.
Or maybe you can instead recognise that like Windows compatible binaries don't work on Mac's and vice versa because they are designed by completely different companies, different Linux distributions are going to have their own way of doing things. You should be congratulating them for having already solved your problem with the Linux Standard Base. Perhaps if you can convince Microsoft and Apple to switch to Linux we can all be one happy family.
Persistent troll. Here you go: ELF and LSB.
why hasn't the Linux community come up with a simple install script/storage container that packs all the dirty stuff into one neat little package for easy distribution?
You mean like ELF and LSB?
I disagree with use of the term 'opt-out'. You don't 'opt-out' of the cigarette tax when you don't smoke.
The rest of what you say makes sense, I agree that the way the BBC is set up largely keeps the government from interfering. I have to say I'm a little fed up with quite how many people talk nonsense about the licence fee when praising the BBC though. I wouldn't deny the BBC any of its merits, I would scrap the licence fee if I had half a chance regardless.
Taking a sample of 1000 people and then try to make an estimation about a population of about 61 million is, as I said, far too insignificant a number to allow for accurate predictions.
If you have a margin of error of 1% and a confidence level of 99% then 16000 would be about right for 61 million. However, firstly the story is about internet users not total population and secondly there is no indication that they were trying to be that accurate. 1072 is perfectly adequate sample size for a confidence level of 95% and an error margin of 3% with a population of 61 million.
I think the big point is that there isn't an actual paper to link to. The BBC radio guys phoned up the people who did the original survey and were told some of the figures over the phone along with an assurance that it was done properly. While that may be good enough for a commercial company who just want to quote a number a nice sounding number from a statistician, government should be a lot more careful about where they get their numbers.
I would recommend you listen to the BBC iPlayer link on TFA. When the government has its own statistics department (which was set up by this current government, not that long ago) they better damn well use it. If they did use it and these statistics are actually approved then the department need to be hit over the head with a cluebat for having no quality standards.
I don't think that's how the science works. When you are reporting in percentages, the difference between 1000 and 10000 is insignificant.
It sounds like the original publication was merely for some commercial interest. They should not have been used by the government in any way whatsoever. The government has a whole department devoted to statistics, there should be no excuse for this sort of thing and the sooner politicians come up with some sort of rulebook for verifying this sort of thing the better.
Since all I've seen are complaints from people who obviously don't know how statistics work, this is obviously not the case
What the hell? You're accusing others of being idiots and you come out with a statement like that? How does lots of people talking about something they don't know about validate the study in any way?
I really don't get why people are bothered about which way the number is pointing, it is completely irrelevant to whether piracy is good or bad. Unless of course you use the number to provide evidence that the piracy is having a harmful effect. I think the statistical likelihood of anyone using the number in that way is pretty insignificant though.
To me, the number is meaningless in itself. The fact that government agencies have been using the number is the issue. Either they knew that the number was wrong or they didn't bother checking it. Both possibilities can point to incompetence or malice and reflect very badly on the people responsible.
You might be happy with government by making shit up and gut feelings but for the rest of us this is a good example of why government has no respect.
Nice calculator, I think the GP's main point though was that there is no evidence of a properly selected sample. You would be right in saying that the sample size has very little to do with anything compared to whether the sample is biased or not.
Oh come on, the BBC have reported this number many times since it was first used and you sing their praises because Radio 4 happens to do a show devoted to statistics? I wonder just how much time they will devote to debunking this statistic considering how many times they have quoted it.
Just because the BBC is better than the US networks doesn't mean we should be proud, personally I'm appalled at how low the bar is set.
It's a pity the BBC isn't free.
I concur, however before I paid for any BBC services I would want them to split those services up. I don't think my news should be subsidising entertainment or vice-versa. I think this is a key problem we see with most corporations (like Murdochs') and that it would be an important measure to preserve the integrity of the BBC in a free market.
As long as paying for BBC news gives Jeremy Clarkson a wage (and I do watch Topgear, my point is that I wouldn't pay to watch it), I will look for an independent service to support. This problem goes both ways.. I won't buy a Simpsons DVD as long as their network is Fox.
This is not only an issue of principle but one of economics. When you pay a corporation you are rarely supporting what you've paid for as much as you are funding the corporation's next moneymaking scheme. Free markets work best when the exchange of money for a product is not handled by a middleman with their own agenda.
While funny and certainly not something I would argue against, I would point out that BBC provides entertainment through licence fees as well as news.
Yet? I thought there was serious discussion going on about widening the scope for funding to include computers or internet access.