Yes, because what most people do with computers today (essentially word-processing, email and websurfing) is a solved problem and except for bugfixes there is little demand for anything "new". Actually, quite contrarily most people don't want anything new.
That's the main reason why the transition to Linux takes so long. The advantages have to overcome the resistance of anything new or different.
MS presented it to us at my company - little there to tempt us, but lots of flashy effects to wow consumers. And you know that new computers will come with it installed as a given.
So you honestly think that "flashy effects" will "shift the goal-posts? Honestly?
Sure Vista will be installed on new computers, but people tend to keep their old computers for longer and longer times. IIRC it took WinXP 4-5 years to get to 50% of the installed base of Windows. The truth is that most people would be perfectly happy with a bug-free version of Windows 95, a system that is already over 10 years old.
"Flashy effects" will not shift any goal-post.
Actually, as I already said, people want to be left alone when it comes to computers. They want to keep using the same software because it already does anything they would remotely want for many years. The way I see it, Vista will take an awful long time to get on to the majority of running Windows-machines, certainly longer than XP did. Even if we assume 5 years (very optimistic as the PC-market is even more saturated than when XP came out) that moment wouldn't come before 2012.
Actually the temptation for Microsoft to somehow force customers to Vista will be quite big and may be a big push for Linux.
Let's take Munich as an example: The city was perfectly happy with it's Windows NT4 architecture and would certainly still run it today if Microsoft didn't drop support for it.
When Microsoft drops support for Win2K, many customers will wonder wether some bugfixes are really worth all that money for licenses, new hardware, retraining, etc.
Also, you seem to miss the main point:
Microsoft already owns almost 100% of the "consumers" because of computer games. Even if they "wow" consumers, it won't matter a lot because they will go from almost 100% to almost 100%.
The interesting field of the desktop is not the "consumer" desktop.
It's the desktop in callcenters or other workstations (for example 3d-modelling where Linux has already made great advances) that only need to run a single (or very few) applications.
It's the desktop of governments that benefit hugely from OpenSource because all the costs go to the local economy and about half of that comes back via taxes.
"Flashy effects" may wow consumers but they won't have any effect on governments or callcenters.
After many niches will be filled by Linux and after the important applications have been ported to these niches (what we saw in 3D-modelling 3-4 years ago and currenty see in government and callcenters), the next step will be the general-purpose corporate desktop. (the consumer desktop will come much, much later)
Comments like these just flow over from ignorance and stupidity.
Let's review the statement from Extremadura:
The government has estimated that the total cost of this project was about 190,000 euros, 18 million euros lower than if the schools had purchased Microsoft software.
Do you think that "Before buying printer, check Linux compatability at linuxprinting.org." is included in these 190,000 Euros? (= well over 200.000 US Dollars)
Do you think that they called vendors ahead before they bought whatever was needed to upgrade 70,000 computers to the new printing-needs?
Do you think that they called vendors ahead before they set up printers for 70,000 computers, no matter if run on Linux or Windows?
OK, I fully admit it:
For some gamer who runs a single computer in a basement, Linux is probably not the prime choice. Even for many non-gaming home users Linux might not be the best choice.
But this is about a government organization that:
Doesn't need games
Runs so much hardware that the cost for checking out (or even creating fixes or workarounds for) hardware-compatibility is neglectible
With every year, MS Windows loses another advantage or another killer-feature and the playground - while far from fair - gets a little bit more leveled.
I still remember the mid-late 90s, when you still had to recompile the kernel for sound (now it's autodetected), when there was no office suite (StarOffice came IIRC somewhen around 1998), when there was no KDE.
Of course, in many areas (especially gaming) Windows is de-facto without competition, but these areas become smaller with each year.
For the pioneers like Extremadura and Munich, a lot of political will and forsightness was needed.
For those governments that come later this political will won't be needed (or let's say not nearly as much will be needed) as the migration will be easier, cheaper and faster than in Extremadura or Munich - because of the experience made there, because some programs will already be ported, because the software was developed further.
In the next years, the biggest chance for OpenSource are the OpenDocument formats. While the old.doc format will remain "the standard" for quite some time, I think OpenDocument has good chances beating Microsoft's new XML format and becoming the standard in maybe 10 years. (Mainly because MS XML doesn't offer the advantage of the old.doc format (= being established) and has no advantage versus OpenDocument)
If that happens, MS Office loses it's dominating grip, Microsoft loses a lot of revenue and the ability to fund expensive pet-projects like XBox - and Windows loses another advantage...
If I'd lived 50 or 70 years ago, I'd never have been able to predict society would move forward so quickly.
Crime is much higher (2-3 times higher for violent crime, even more so for property crime), the average standard of living declines since the 1970's and in the case of the US and UK, the trade deficit exploded in the same time so much that only bankrupcy, massive inflation or a break of contracts seem a realistic way out. (all of which cause such a decline of standard of living - but so fast that all people will notice and not just those who know about the past)
The amazing thing about this is that TV and mainstream newspapers have succeeded in making people believe that this state of affairs is "progress".
Why? Do you really believe that compatibility-nonsense yourself? Because, quite honestly, all hardware-related compatibility problems I ran into were from stuff like different CPU and RAM sockets or different drivers between graphic cards from different vendors. I honestly cannot see any of that on the PS3, no matter how many versions Sony will introduce.
The PS3 is certainly up to most office tasks, especially email and internet.
If they market it as a replacement for home computers and port OpenOffice to it, I don't see why it shouldn't be a viable replacement for a lot of home computers.
(Please note that I said "a lot of" and not "all". Of course, if you need Photoshop or AutoCAD, it won't be for you. But I think it's pretty safe to say that over 2/3 of all home computers are used to play games, surf the web and maybe type up some letter - and that's it.)
Also 2% is a pretty high failure rate after just a few weeks. Especially when it gets warmer and dust starts to collect everywhere, the failure rate will probably become much higher.
"The best deterministic strategy was found to be "Tit for Tat", which Anatol Rapoport developed and entered into the tournament. It was the simplest of any program entered, containing only four lines of BASIC, and won the contest. The strategy is simply to cooperate on the first iteration of the game; after that, do what your opponent did on the previous move."
Actually that's a pretty good summary of what most ethics, morals and religions suggest: Be nice by default, but you may defend yourself when being attacked.
And that strategy won the contest, so it has an evolutionary advantage.
Therefore, I remark that it requires a lot of faith to be an atheist--you have to believe in that which can never be proven (theories)...
Yeah, because those theories serve us pretty well.
Let's take gravity again.
The most primitive form of the theory of gravity is "all things fall down". (This theory is primitive, yet still scientific) That theory was very useful for cavemen and it actually still is for us to this day, because it essentially says that things will stay where you put them and not magically float away.
Of course one day someone invented the balloon and the "all things fall down" was obviously disproven. So you will probably say that "science was wrong!" - Well, yes it was, however the "all things fall down"-theory still serves us pretty well in most day-to-day situations and the new theory (that air also falls down and therefore can push up a balloon) doesn't really contradict the old theory, it's more an enhancement.
Then, humans found out about how planets move around space. Again, the scientific theory was shattered to pieces because scientists found out that things didn't "fall down", they just attract each other. You might say: "Science was wrong AGAIN", but actually the theory doesn't really contradict earlier theories: The "things fall down"-theory is merely a special case of the "matters attract each other"-theory, so the theory just got expanded again.
Then, Einstein postulated the theory of relativity which solved one remaining gravitional mystery (Mercur's motion). Again the theory got expanded, and it remains the most accurate theory to this day.
Do you know understand how science works?
OK, now let's go back to some caveman atheist who believes in the "wrong" "all things fall down"-theory and his neighbour, who believes that things may float away when the moon is up.
Who do you think has a more accurate picture of reality?
Both beliefs are wrong, not all things fall down and things don't float away when the moon is up.
However the first belief is scientific (no experiment contradicted the belief when cavemen lifed, but you can disprove it with an experiment), the latter isn't (no experiment contradicted the belief, but you cannot disprove the theory because it contains the word "may float away").
So which is it? Asia or Africa?;-)
That exactly is the beauty of science, it's honesty. In science, there are a lot of fields in which scientists will say that they just don't know or that one possibility is more probably than the other but not certain. Actually in many cases (like what caused the big bang or what happens after you die) science will say that it cannot and can never answer this question.
But to answer your question: Probably Africa, but not without doubt.
Science and religion are not necesserily mutually exclusive. For example it is quite possible to believe in the scientific (empirical) method and still belief in god creating the big bang. (The scinetific method cannot tell us anything about what caused the big bang and never will)
What indeed is incompatible with science is to believe in Hercules' tales or Zeus causing lightning.
Also, science cannot tell us what will happen to you when you die (it's pretty much the same as with the big bang: It just is impossible to do scientific analysis) so you might belive that you go to heaven to meet 70 virgins there or go to hell to meet the devil or whatever you want to believe. That's a subject in which science doesn't interfere.
Science seems to require a lot of faith. It must take a lot of faith to be an atheist...
Not really, the only "belief" in science is that of the empirical method of gathering knowledge: That laws of nature are not randomly changing and that experiments have repeatable outcomes. And because laws of nature don't change randomly (or by "god's will") experiments can tell us about the laws of nature.
Let's take for example gravity.
If you do an experiment, for example take a rock, lift it up and let it go, it falls down. If you do that experiment often enough, the empirical method says that ALL rocks will fall down when lifted up.
This is the basic principle of science, all knowledge in science was gathered using the empirical method.
There is no future in C#, because it's Microsoft's toy, and it will always be Microsoft's toy. If they want they can take it and go home. When MS decides its time to stop, as they did for many of their other much vaunted initiatives, then that's it, your party is over.
Exactly. They did the same with Visual Basic (which got replaced by "Visual Basic.NET" which has only the name in common) and they will do it again because they NEED reasons for people to upgrade.
Ok, and those launches aren't really all that great. Sure, it's a smaller launch but everybody loves to act like the PS2 launched with MGS 2, FFX and GTA 3. The launch games weren't really significant,...
Why do you have to resort to subjective claims?
Let's stick to the facts:
That both PS2 and GC had more launch titles is a fact (and which titles are "good" is subjective)
Microsoft selling less XBox360s during their launch than XBox1 is a fact. (They sold about twice as many XBox1 in Japan and 50% more in North America)
Microsoft sold only 325,902 units in North America in November
Didn't I read somewhere they only had 400k units for NA launch? If so those are pretty good #s.
That's just 81%, which is OK, but not really stellar.
Given the fact that 400000 is even LESS than what they sold in the XBox1 launch - well even Microsoft seems to have lost faith in becoming the top player in the console business...
What's better: selling damn near all you can produce or having a stockpile of unsold goods?
First of all, 325k out of 400k is merely 81% - you call that "damn near all you can produce"?
Then, of course it matters how much you are trying to sell in the first place.
XBox1's launch was pretty dissapointing (they sold only half of their own expectations) and now they get out even less than that for XBox360 - and they sell only 81%?
Do you really think that's the way to get first place in the console business?
You have taken a single sentence out of context. Good job.
And you didn't even take one single sentence from my posting, even better!
My posting was primarily about the namecalling - of course I included only the relevant passage.
Actually I had exactly your opinion a few years ago, that it just can't work. However in day-to-day life Wikipedia has been very useful and also accurate for me.
So for me, any "gamer" is not in the position to claim any moral high ground especially when it comes to the topic of "wasting time".
Of course vandalism is a problem and this measure is a way to address it.
If you were critizising "forced edits" you were attacking a strawman, because even if Wikipedia wanted to "force edits", they couldn't force anybody to do anything.
To which I reply: because I don't have time to babysit the Internet. Hardly anyone does. If they do, it isn't exactly a compliment.
These guys are so ignorant it's not funny anymore.
We are talking about Penny Arcade, a website for gamers. So they say it's a "waste of time" and only losers have time for something like that? Gamers say that? If Wikipedia-contributors have too much time, what is to be said about gamers? At least Wikipedia-contributors are getting themselves educated as a side-effect but what excuse do gamers have?
It's a hobby.
Some people collect stamps, others play computer games, others contribute to Wikipedia.
But it seems that a hobby is only OK when it's a complete waste of time, but if someone profits of it (like Wikipedia or free software) immediately someone starts namecalling.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because what most people do with computers today (essentially word-processing, email and websurfing) is a solved problem and except for bugfixes there is little demand for anything "new". Actually, quite contrarily most people don't want anything new.
That's the main reason why the transition to Linux takes so long. The advantages have to overcome the resistance of anything new or different.
MS presented it to us at my company - little there to tempt us, but lots of flashy effects to wow consumers. And you know that new computers will come with it installed as a given.
So you honestly think that "flashy effects" will "shift the goal-posts? Honestly?
Sure Vista will be installed on new computers, but people tend to keep their old computers for longer and longer times. IIRC it took WinXP 4-5 years to get to 50% of the installed base of Windows. The truth is that most people would be perfectly happy with a bug-free version of Windows 95, a system that is already over 10 years old.
"Flashy effects" will not shift any goal-post.
Actually, as I already said, people want to be left alone when it comes to computers. They want to keep using the same software because it already does anything they would remotely want for many years. The way I see it, Vista will take an awful long time to get on to the majority of running Windows-machines, certainly longer than XP did. Even if we assume 5 years (very optimistic as the PC-market is even more saturated than when XP came out) that moment wouldn't come before 2012.
Actually the temptation for Microsoft to somehow force customers to Vista will be quite big and may be a big push for Linux.
Let's take Munich as an example: The city was perfectly happy with it's Windows NT4 architecture and would certainly still run it today if Microsoft didn't drop support for it.
When Microsoft drops support for Win2K, many customers will wonder wether some bugfixes are really worth all that money for licenses, new hardware, retraining, etc.
Also, you seem to miss the main point:
Microsoft already owns almost 100% of the "consumers" because of computer games. Even if they "wow" consumers, it won't matter a lot because they will go from almost 100% to almost 100%.
The interesting field of the desktop is not the "consumer" desktop.
"Flashy effects" may wow consumers but they won't have any effect on governments or callcenters.
After many niches will be filled by Linux and after the important applications have been ported to these niches (what we saw in 3D-modelling 3-4 years ago and currenty see in government and callcenters), the next step will be the general-purpose corporate desktop. (the consumer desktop will come much, much later)
Let's review the statement from Extremadura:
The government has estimated that the total cost of this project was about 190,000 euros, 18 million euros lower than if the schools had purchased Microsoft software.
Do you think that "Before buying printer, check Linux compatability at linuxprinting.org." is included in these 190,000 Euros? (= well over 200.000 US Dollars)
Do you think that they called vendors ahead before they bought whatever was needed to upgrade 70,000 computers to the new printing-needs?
Do you think that they called vendors ahead before they set up printers for 70,000 computers, no matter if run on Linux or Windows?
OK, I fully admit it:
For some gamer who runs a single computer in a basement, Linux is probably not the prime choice. Even for many non-gaming home users Linux might not be the best choice.
But this is about a government organization that:
With every year, MS Windows loses another advantage or another killer-feature and the playground - while far from fair - gets a little bit more leveled.
I still remember the mid-late 90s, when you still had to recompile the kernel for sound (now it's autodetected), when there was no office suite (StarOffice came IIRC somewhen around 1998), when there was no KDE.
Of course, in many areas (especially gaming) Windows is de-facto without competition, but these areas become smaller with each year.
For the pioneers like Extremadura and Munich, a lot of political will and forsightness was needed.
For those governments that come later this political will won't be needed (or let's say not nearly as much will be needed) as the migration will be easier, cheaper and faster than in Extremadura or Munich - because of the experience made there, because some programs will already be ported, because the software was developed further.
In the next years, the biggest chance for OpenSource are the OpenDocument formats. While the old .doc format will remain "the standard" for quite some time, I think OpenDocument has good chances beating Microsoft's new XML format and becoming the standard in maybe 10 years. (Mainly because MS XML doesn't offer the advantage of the old .doc format (= being established) and has no advantage versus OpenDocument)
If that happens, MS Office loses it's dominating grip, Microsoft loses a lot of revenue and the ability to fund expensive pet-projects like XBox - and Windows loses another advantage...
Crime is much higher (2-3 times higher for violent crime, even more so for property crime), the average standard of living declines since the 1970's and in the case of the US and UK, the trade deficit exploded in the same time so much that only bankrupcy, massive inflation or a break of contracts seem a realistic way out. (all of which cause such a decline of standard of living - but so fast that all people will notice and not just those who know about the past)
The amazing thing about this is that TV and mainstream newspapers have succeeded in making people believe that this state of affairs is "progress".
I know people who have classified their new TVs as computer monitors because they had VGA-inputs.
Why? Do you really believe that compatibility-nonsense yourself? Because, quite honestly, all hardware-related compatibility problems I ran into were from stuff like different CPU and RAM sockets or different drivers between graphic cards from different vendors. I honestly cannot see any of that on the PS3, no matter how many versions Sony will introduce.
The PS3 is certainly up to most office tasks, especially email and internet.
If they market it as a replacement for home computers and port OpenOffice to it, I don't see why it shouldn't be a viable replacement for a lot of home computers.
(Please note that I said "a lot of" and not "all". Of course, if you need Photoshop or AutoCAD, it won't be for you. But I think it's pretty safe to say that over 2/3 of all home computers are used to play games, surf the web and maybe type up some letter - and that's it.)
Also 2% is a pretty high failure rate after just a few weeks. Especially when it gets warmer and dust starts to collect everywhere, the failure rate will probably become much higher.
You think keeping track of one number is a "large" problem?
If it's such a "large" problem, why can Windows XP do it?
Oh, so poor Microsoft has no other choice?
If that is so, why don't they say so?
Why do they need their fanboys to point that out, after all, they have a marketing-department for that?
Why can I go to ANY store and can buy a region-free hardware player (at least here in Europe) if it's illegal?
Also, if it's about laws, did nobody tell Microsoft, that outside the USA (who don't care much about DVD-regions anyway) there are different laws?
Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_Dilemma
"The best deterministic strategy was found to be "Tit for Tat", which Anatol Rapoport developed and entered into the tournament. It was the simplest of any program entered, containing only four lines of BASIC, and won the contest. The strategy is simply to cooperate on the first iteration of the game; after that, do what your opponent did on the previous move."
Actually that's a pretty good summary of what most ethics, morals and religions suggest: Be nice by default, but you may defend yourself when being attacked.
And that strategy won the contest, so it has an evolutionary advantage.
Yeah, because those theories serve us pretty well.
Let's take gravity again.
The most primitive form of the theory of gravity is "all things fall down". (This theory is primitive, yet still scientific) That theory was very useful for cavemen and it actually still is for us to this day, because it essentially says that things will stay where you put them and not magically float away.
Of course one day someone invented the balloon and the "all things fall down" was obviously disproven. So you will probably say that "science was wrong!" - Well, yes it was, however the "all things fall down"-theory still serves us pretty well in most day-to-day situations and the new theory (that air also falls down and therefore can push up a balloon) doesn't really contradict the old theory, it's more an enhancement.
Then, humans found out about how planets move around space. Again, the scientific theory was shattered to pieces because scientists found out that things didn't "fall down", they just attract each other. You might say: "Science was wrong AGAIN", but actually the theory doesn't really contradict earlier theories: The "things fall down"-theory is merely a special case of the "matters attract each other"-theory, so the theory just got expanded again.
Then, Einstein postulated the theory of relativity which solved one remaining gravitional mystery (Mercur's motion). Again the theory got expanded, and it remains the most accurate theory to this day.
Do you know understand how science works?
OK, now let's go back to some caveman atheist who believes in the "wrong" "all things fall down"-theory and his neighbour, who believes that things may float away when the moon is up.
Who do you think has a more accurate picture of reality?
Both beliefs are wrong, not all things fall down and things don't float away when the moon is up.
However the first belief is scientific (no experiment contradicted the belief when cavemen lifed, but you can disprove it with an experiment), the latter isn't (no experiment contradicted the belief, but you cannot disprove the theory because it contains the word "may float away").
So which is it? Asia or Africa? ;-)
That exactly is the beauty of science, it's honesty. In science, there are a lot of fields in which scientists will say that they just don't know or that one possibility is more probably than the other but not certain. Actually in many cases (like what caused the big bang or what happens after you die) science will say that it cannot and can never answer this question.
But to answer your question: Probably Africa, but not without doubt.
Science and religion are not necesserily mutually exclusive. For example it is quite possible to believe in the scientific (empirical) method and still belief in god creating the big bang. (The scinetific method cannot tell us anything about what caused the big bang and never will)
What indeed is incompatible with science is to believe in Hercules' tales or Zeus causing lightning.
Also, science cannot tell us what will happen to you when you die (it's pretty much the same as with the big bang: It just is impossible to do scientific analysis) so you might belive that you go to heaven to meet 70 virgins there or go to hell to meet the devil or whatever you want to believe. That's a subject in which science doesn't interfere.
Not really, the only "belief" in science is that of the empirical method of gathering knowledge: That laws of nature are not randomly changing and that experiments have repeatable outcomes. And because laws of nature don't change randomly (or by "god's will") experiments can tell us about the laws of nature.
Let's take for example gravity.
If you do an experiment, for example take a rock, lift it up and let it go, it falls down. If you do that experiment often enough, the empirical method says that ALL rocks will fall down when lifted up.
This is the basic principle of science, all knowledge in science was gathered using the empirical method.
Well, at least Blu-Ray is easily distinguishable compared to DVD-R, DVD+R, DVD-RAM, HD-DVD, HD-DVD-R, HD-DVD-RAM, ...
Let's hope they keep it that way and don't start to release Blu-Ray-R, Blu-Ray+R, HD-Blu-Ray and HD-Blu-Ray+R...
The whole point of an API is to be able to replace the parts on both ends. Without standardization, it doesn't make any sense.
Exactly. They did the same with Visual Basic (which got replaced by "Visual Basic.NET" which has only the name in common) and they will do it again because they NEED reasons for people to upgrade.
Why do you have to resort to subjective claims?
Let's stick to the facts:
LOL, instead you get crash bugs because you have not religiously followed the manual where to put your power brick.
If you think you can impress me by making up numbers, you are wrong.
SomeTime in 2006 / Christmas Future 1 Million Xbox 360 Customers(its only been 30 days man)
1 Million in one year (especially if it is the first year) is nothing.
Sony sold the PS2 100 million times in 6 years worldwide and 40 million times in north america.
That's over 6.5 million per year.
Actually, it's pretty likely that Sony sells more of the six year old Playstation2 next year than Microsoft will sell of their brand-new XBox360.
By that pace it will take the Playstation 3 only 1 or 2 months to catch up to the XBox360.
Of course the Microsoft marketing department will call that a success, just like they call losing 4 billion a success with the XBox1.
That's just 81%, which is OK, but not really stellar.
Given the fact that 400000 is even LESS than what they sold in the XBox1 launch - well even Microsoft seems to have lost faith in becoming the top player in the console business...
First of all, 325k out of 400k is merely 81% - you call that "damn near all you can produce"?
Then, of course it matters how much you are trying to sell in the first place.
XBox1's launch was pretty dissapointing (they sold only half of their own expectations) and now they get out even less than that for XBox360 - and they sell only 81%?
Do you really think that's the way to get first place in the console business?
Also they sold something between 41.817 and 62.000 units in Japan during the first 2 days while they sold 123.000 XBox1 unit in the first 2 days.
Seems like the XBox360 launch is even worse than that of XBox1.
And you didn't even take one single sentence from my posting, even better!
My posting was primarily about the namecalling - of course I included only the relevant passage.
Actually I had exactly your opinion a few years ago, that it just can't work. However in day-to-day life Wikipedia has been very useful and also accurate for me.
So for me, any "gamer" is not in the position to claim any moral high ground especially when it comes to the topic of "wasting time".
Of course vandalism is a problem and this measure is a way to address it.
If you were critizising "forced edits" you were attacking a strawman, because even if Wikipedia wanted to "force edits", they couldn't force anybody to do anything.
These guys are so ignorant it's not funny anymore.
We are talking about Penny Arcade, a website for gamers. So they say it's a "waste of time" and only losers have time for something like that? Gamers say that? If Wikipedia-contributors have too much time, what is to be said about gamers? At least Wikipedia-contributors are getting themselves educated as a side-effect but what excuse do gamers have?
It's a hobby.
Some people collect stamps, others play computer games, others contribute to Wikipedia.
But it seems that a hobby is only OK when it's a complete waste of time, but if someone profits of it (like Wikipedia or free software) immediately someone starts namecalling.