Because when used properly it enhances the coolness factor of the desktop. Basically the way to approach things is to have different levels of transparency depending on whether or not a window is active - if it is active, transparency should drop to a minimum so real work can go on. Most likely this should be part of desktop themes - how to handle transparency as a function of window focus. Maybe even add a scrollbar functionality to the window border at the top to temporarily override the defaults if you want to, say, write in a text editor while looking at the terminal under it. There are a few cases where it can be useful, and the rest of the time, with proper themeing, what's wrong with being cool?
Of course, I don't know if this setup can do local transparency differently on a per window basis - that will be needed before things can really happen the way they should.
IMHO "ready for the desktop" is a moving target. For goodness sake, Windows 3.1 was once a viable commercial product! Today it would be laughed off the market. If the current KDE desktop had gone up against Windows 3.1 the world would be running Linux right now. Yet many people used Windows 3.1, because it was such an improvement over what had come before.
I think Linux is entering the desktop race at an unfortunate stage. So many people are now so used to Windows that I'm not sure what can be done about it in the short term. IMHO KDE as a desktop environment can mostly stand toe to toe with Windows. But it doesn't matter, because it isn't exactly what people expect.
The number of computer users has exploded over the last ten years, until now much of the technological world is dependent on them. But that also means a lot of people and companies have standardized on one thing - Windows. There's not a whole lot you can do about that - one the decision is made and people are trained, the inertia in the system outweighs EVERY other factor.
We as geeks tend to forget this, but many people want the computer to just do its job and stay out of the way. Which really means "do what I expect". What they expect is what they are used to. Checkmate.
I consider the computer desktop to be a natural monopoly, even more so than things like phones. Phones were only a natural monopoly while there was one way to get a signal to the home, and it involved laying lots of cable. But technology changed that situation, and the people were ready to use it, because it didn't involve any significant change on their part. The monopoly with computer software, however, is driven not by technology but by the USER HIM/HERSELF. There is no solution for this problem based on technology. I know the thought is usually used in other circumstances, but it applies here - you can't apply a technical solution to a problem rooted in people. The monopoly comes from people.
Yes, Linux still has some weaknesses. But compare it to Windows 95, for example, which kicked off the PC boom. Being "desktop ready" is all relative. And in the end, I think worrying about being "desktop ready" won't make any difference, even if we are somehow defined to have "made it". I'd worry about inertia. That's the real enemy.
"And for those who want to chuck X, well, go use Windows, or suggest a better alternative. To date, I haven't seen anything close."
It isn't there yet, but http://www.fresco.org shows great promise. Given a critical mass of really good hackers working on it and its dependancies, that project could really go somewhere.
No there isn't anything ready, but Fresco might provide a good long term solution.
Um. That makes no sense. Presumably you are not thrilled that people use Free/Open software without giving back to the community, and instead are using it because they don't want to pay license fees and are too honest to pirate? If more people were Cheap and Ethical rather than just Cheap Linux would be the world's leading OS right now, because no one would steal commercial software and they wouldn't want to fork over the money.
We want to encourage these people! They are mindshare, by using it they are rooting out bugs (you don't really find bugs until people are using your software) and one on a thousand may decide to eventually help a project, or help another newbie get started.
Why should we resent people using the tools we explicitly want to be open, and in most cases free as well? Does it hurt us? So they get a free lunch - the extra cost to us is nonexistant - one more download. We were gonna do this anyway - let more people benefit! Make the world a better place! And don't diss users. They're what make our software mean something.
"We get lease documents, legal notices, business proposals, ad nauseum, in word or excel format. If you can't read it, you limit your professional image and connectivity."
So have one install of openoffice to route office documents through to save as a format Koffice can read. This should work until Koffice gets its own filters. Also, you could politely request that people submitting such things submit them as RTF or PDF documents. What's wrong with that?
"K-office is compatable with k-office. Open/Star office at least has basic word compatability and functionality. Please, microsoft may suck for their draconian EULA's, their extremely high prices, their business model, etc. But they make a good office suite. Plus, like it or not, it's the world standard."
If everyone keeps treating them like a world standard, they will be forever. Someone has to begin the move away. I say if their EULA sucks, their prices suck, and their business ethics suck, I don't want to do business with them. Politely ask people who wish you to consider their documents to send them in an open format, and just be ready to process the ones that don't comply through openoffice. Don't cave in to the monopoly just because they make a good product, and ignore the rest of what they do. They'll keep right on doing it. They need to hear the $ vote walking away - nothing else has any meaning to them. Maybe it is hard to do that, but that's all the more reason to do it. Don't let Microsoft control how you do business. Good products do not excuse or justify bad practices, and Microsoft has to be taught that lesson. Not teaching it will only make things worse.
I take it by this you mean someone who uses the software without giving back to the community. Um.
Stop and think about this a second. Additional users are always helpful to software. They may spot bugs, someone may suggest a feature you haven't thought of. Even if you never hear from them, they may recommend it to someone else who then helps you out. And ultimately, you were going to write the software anyway. You're a volunteer. You can always bow out and let someone else take over. So why should you resent a "leech"? You want the software to be used.
And not to mention the warm fuzzy feeling you get when your work is actually downloaded and does something useful. Remember, in the open source world the motivation is not money. (Not that it isn't nice, but it's not the main focus.)
Re:Let the flames begin ... and ignore them.
on
XFree86 4.3.0 Released
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Usually the replacement mentioned is Fresco, a.k.a Berlin. I think Fresco is a good replacement for X in the same way GNU Hurd is a good replacement for Linux. The dieas and potential are true next generation, but the implimentation is years away. Which is fine. I agree X certainly will hold us as long as it needs to.
"Solar/photovoltaic consumes almost as much energy to make solar cells as they produce over their entire lifetime and yield toxic waste"
Actually, if the solar cell can last long enough you do OK with them. But your assuming technology is static in the solar power world. It isn't.
Thin film solar power systems are in development, and they have the potential in the future to vastly decrease the amount of material, energy and waste involved producing solar cells. Don't assume the current problems are the way it will be forever. Enough work on solar will find some good solutions. There are already promising ideas out there. But we need to keep at it.
"Nerds would find their unpopularity more bearable if it merely caused them to be ignored. Unfortunately, to be unpopular in school is to be actively persecuted."
"I realize that high school was not that big of a deal. (I hope everyone else realizes that) It was just another period in my life."
That's a lot like saying fifth grade homework is easy. It's a whole lot easier to say from our position than someone who is stuck in the middle of it. Don't discount the pain of someone in high school just because they will eventually move on to something else. That pain is very, very real.
High school is life to high school students. That makes it a big deal.
That's true, but inertia itself is a powerful market force. There is also the fudge factor - i.e. how much will we put up with before jumping ship to another, possibly less powerful engine? I'm betting Microsoft conditioned users would put up with a lot. And if a critical mass doesn't shift, we're stuck. Remember, google has income. If any other search engine wanted to operate on the scale of google, they would need similar funds. Which means they need users.
Google will never have the stranglehold Microsoft has, but they probably have enough power to cause a lot of trouble for a lot of people if they want to. That's the concern. Power in commercial hands is always a concern, by definition, because the profit motive has proved very bad at respecting the rights of consumers.
"If it starts to be useless, I'll go onto the next thing that's not."
Exactly - you will, and I will, but a lot of people won't. Human nature. Especially since Microsoft has gotten people used to getting screwed. See, enough people have to switch to make a critical mass for the new engine.
It doesn't matter that they can switch to a better product if they won't. Maybe they would. I hope I'm wrong.
"The 'natural monopoly' pretty much comes out of the way software works. With essencially no reproduction costs, the cost per unit is R&D cost / copies sold. Obviously this is far lower for one company than for two companies that have to split the market. Which also means that the natural monopoly can undersell any entrant that seeks to take the monopoly away from them."
Sort of, but Linux/open source are no cost alteratives who's only major barriors to entry are intertia and legacy documents/apps/users. Seems to be quite effective as a slowing mechanism. No one can undersell linux. Then we can argue about how viable linux is on the desktop, but that's another discussion.
"Should you fear Google? No, not until such time a law is passed - and actively enforced - that you must use it for every search, and all other search engines must cease their operations."
Google can still be a monopoly, without the law backing it and with other search engines out there. Guess I didn't say that clearly enough.
On the surface that seems reasonable, but stop and think a little more carefully for a minute.
First, I am a fan of google. I like what they do, and I use their site all the time. I hope the keep going.
HOWEVER, that does not mean that we can just write off the power they have. Since this is slashdot, I think I have a good analogy for you.
Microsoft.
Microsoft is not in any legal sense a monopoly (prior to the court ruling, anyway). No one says in law that you have to use any Microsoft product. Heck, my home machine is strictly Linux, and so far that's legal. But remember a certain court fiasco a while back, and the one bone we got tossed.
Microsoft is a monopoly.
Why did they come to that conclusion? No law says we can't use Linux or Mac. Lots of people do. Most people would agree both are better than Windows.
In the computer world, people are the cause of monopolies.
Not to say they are to blaim, although that may be true at some level. What I mean is, people create the conditions of a natural monopoly through lack of willingness/time/whatever to learn new things. There is a high cost in training time to use anything computer related. Most people have paid that price for Microsoft, and didn't enjoy the experience at all. They wouldn't change if you offered them the perfect OS, because they wouldn't want to suffer through retraining. That's why most Linux GUIs target Microsoft. Not because it's good, but because it's what people know.
Google has a massive inertia behind it. It is now, for many people, THE interface to the web. For many people, they are not going to want to put in the effort to find a new/better search engine even if google starts to do little annoying things. They'll live with it, because it is faster than researching to find a better setup. That also presupposes a better setup, which would be tough. Google has put a lot of work into this.
Thus, Google has power. Not by law, but by market reality. Thus far, they have done the right things with that power. For that they should be cheered and supported, and I'll gladly join that crowd. But no one with real power in a market can EVER be totally trusted, no matter how good they have been to their customers in the past. All it takes is a change of management and the whole thing can go down the tubes. Google is a flashy bandwagon, playing a great song. I love going along for the ride. But if they start playing yellow submarine, I'm ready to dive off. And most people aren't. And that's the (potential) problem.
I wish someone would bring out a new version of the space cadet keyboard, with Linux drivers. Learn that keyboard and you'll never need anything else. Anyone know if someone has recreated a PC version?
You measure it in dreams. This is a dream of humanity - to travel to the stars. It's as old as humanity, but its strength waxes and wanes with the tides of fortune. For thousands of years, humanity dreamed. Then, in the 20th century, they actually did it.
I don't think we can understand how profound that step was. This dream is older than us, older than our civilization, and older than any history or record that survives the ravages of time. And now we've made it real. We've seen birds fly, but nothing living on this earth above the level of virus has ever ventured beyond it. That is a unique human achievement, perhaps in a sense our greatest.
That is why this is a greater disaster. Because it hinders our pursuit of the dream. People do not stop flying because a twin-engine plane goes down. But there is a real chance our resolve will weaken, and we will let this dream slip back to the shadows. Mankind needs a dream, to reach for the unimaginable. Space is our dream. We cannot afford to lose it, or we lose much more than lives.
We all have to die. The tragic part of this is that these people will not get to see their children grow up, and their families suffer one of the greatest losses they can suffer. But if I were to pick the way I would die, daring the exploration of the stars is a great way to go. Better to die daring greatly, then remain always what might have been. That is our risk, and that is humanity's risk - that we become what might have been. We make mistakes, we suffer loss, but we dare greatness. That is what makes humanity worthwhile.
Re:A lesson the Linux worlds needs to learn
on
Why VHS Was Better
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Frankly that attitude, that users aren't interested in computers, is quite dangerous. Let's look at cars as an analogy, and note the parallels. It's quite surprising how many there are.
Cars are a powerful, universal technology. A huge percentage of the US wants/needs cars. But you can't just go out to the store, buy a car, and drive away with it. You must have a drivers license, a certificate of at least minimum skill in operating the car on a road where other people are also driving and your mistakes can have adverse impacts on others. No skill, no car. Then there are mechanics, who not only can operate the car but know what goes on under the hood. These people are in the strongest position, since they control the technology.
Now think about networked computers. Powerful, universal technology, just like cars, and now essential to the way our society operates. But you don't need a license of minimum competency to purchase a computer and put it on the network. Anyone can, whether or not they know a CDROM from a coaster. The problem is, the analogy holds. People operating computers on the network without minimum ability are a hazard, because their computers can and often do become the tools of people interested in causing trouble. Granted that can happen to people at lots of skill levels, just like accidents happen to good drivers. But the greater the general skill level, the fewer accidents on the highway. Likewise, the more intelligent/educated the community on the network, the stronger the network will be.
Linux nerds are like mechanics - they know the guts and control the technology. But so many people on the net know absolutely nothing about what they are doing, and they represent a danger to the general network community. The solution is education, as usual. Since no basic training for using a computer on a network is mandated, I think the expectation for users to progress to a "power user state" is a reflection of the educated computer users' reactions to what happens when ignorance and technology collide on the net. The infastructure is not robust enough to operate without some active help from its users. Just as cars can't go from a to b safely without a reasonably educated driver. Yes, the car might make it, and the ignorant user might be fine on the net. But the odds against it are much higher, and multiplied by thousands those conditions spell trouble.
This will be entertaining. First off, this is exactly what they should have done in the first place - gone after those who were actually downloading/distributing illegal material. Second, they are going to set a record for number of lawsuits brought by any entity other than the government. Where they will fund it I don't know.
One thing it might do, if it succeeds, is limit online distribution of music to truly independant music. Then we might see them lose their grip on the music industry, because people start listening to the indie bands which will be all they can legally download. I actually hope they do succeed, now that I think about it. The internet music community is now a force in its own right, and it may be ready to have its tie strings cut. More power to the RIAA - they may be doing something which will benefit both the indie bands and hurt their bottom line. Let's get a real independant music site established - maybe some music oriented university could set it up. Strictly regulate it, get signed permission from any singers who upload songs, make them free download (in ogg format, of course) and stand back.
Re:Computer lab or vocational education?
on
Maine School & Linux
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"If the intent is to teach business apps, Windows is the right choice because that's what businesses use."
No, no, NO! That's exactly what any good middle or high school (or liberal arts college for that matter) should NOT do. That is the single biggest reason Microsoft has a monopoly. Training on specific apps makes for inflexible users. They should have a class which exposes people to as many platforms as they possibly can, and make people learn basic operations on all of them. Then teach basic word processing and spreadsheets, also making them do basic stuff on all of them. Teach the concepts, then make people learn the different implimentations. That way, when they see another one at work, they will adapt quickly. After a certain point a person learns how the logic of most computer interfaces works, and can figure out new variations fairly quickly. THAT is what schools should be teaching. Businesses can do specific training on applications/macros/whatever that the specific job uses, and people will be fast and flexible at it once they know how to learn new computer apps.
Sorry about the rant, but that's a pet annoyance of mine.
"1. our use of this fuel continues (i wonder if early 1900's late 1800's coal there were environmentalists pushing to stop coal use and find another fuel for mass usage?)."
Probably, and they were right. Coal is extremely dirty. I do not believe that environmental concerns will outweigh personal comfort in this country. Possibly cynical, but also possibly true. We will continue to use gas as long as it is economically viable.
"2. the supply of the raw materials is really less than we'll ever use. no one knows exactly how much supply of those raw materials exists. people have guesses, and all the time they keep finding more and more. it's like it's just seeping up from some where. aliens giving energy to that inhabited planet or sum such."
I hope you aren't serious. The Earth is a finite volume, the oil on it is finite. If we try to sustain a significant percentage of the world's population at the standard of living in the US, the power consumption will increase enormously. Remember, long before we consume all the oil it will become too expensive and rare to burn up in engines. It has other imporatant uses as well.
"at any rate, i think it's much more plausable to assume that we'll NOT run out of gasoline raw materials than it is to assume."
I couldn't disagree more. In any case, the safe bet is to assume that we will run out, and think about the next step.
"from recent events i think we can assume that our usage of gasoline raw materials will decrease. this decrease will probably be slow in order to protect the huge economies built around the industry, but it looks to be in progress."
Only if we do things like drive smaller cars, use efficient appliances, and generally change how we think about energy. I don't see that happening anytime soon - SUV sales are increasing.
"you also state that you don't see hydrogen/gasoline as a power generator (able to generate power). then you state that they're both stored power. most would conclude that if they're stored power, they're able to generate power for use in a vehicle. it's more a transfer of power or energy from the source to the consumer, but it's still generating power."
Semantics, but important to how people think about fossil fuel. Gasoline STORES energy. When you burn it you are releasing stored energy. The sun generated that power over millions of years. It is a transfer of energy from a source to final release point, but the generation of the energy did not originate from the oil. It came from the sun.
"ultimately (as far as we currently know) all our power comes from that big bright think up in the sky. it gets stored in various elements around the planet and eventually we harvest it for our needs."
Nuclear power is self contained on earth, and geothermal is due to internal earth heat. Otherwise, it's pretty much the sun. That's why we need to look at how to harness that energy directly, once our stores of energy from the last few hundred million years are gone.
Obviously, hydrogen is not an energy source when used in a fuel cell. That is not its purpose. Its purpose is to be a replacement for gasoline. Gasoline is not an energy source in the same way hydrogen isn't. Gasoline is millions of years of stored solar energy.
It took millions of years to create the raw materials we use to make gasoline. Once we run out (and we will run out - we are taking it out faster than nature puts it back - it's just a question of when) we will have to either make more gas ourselves or split water to make hydrogen. There's no special difficulty hydrogen presents in this regard - anything we use to run cars is going to be in the end an energy storage device, unless we have nuclear/solar powered cars. Both are impractical, for different reasons. So we have two problems in the future - generate power to replace the huge stored supplys we current are tapping, and store it for use in automobiles.
People seem to assume hydrogen is being proposed as a power generator. FALSE. Hydrogen is being proposed as a way to store energy for use in cars, which can't generate power on site in most cases. Gas is stored power - so is hydrogen when used in a fuel cell. We can't practically create gasoline ourselves - it's much easier to split water and recover the hydrogen. Plus fuel cells are extremely clean and don't give us the byproducts gasoline does. An extra benefit.
That leaves the question of where to get the power to drive this system. That's a completely separate problem, and one of the most crucial. Solar and wind are the two major untapped as far as non-nuclear power goes. Nuclear isn't practical in the us IN ITS CURRENT FORM. Fusion power is under development, and if a power producing fusion plant can ever be created, that will provide lots of power with byproducts that decay in hundreds of years, not tens of thousands. That may be managable. Otherwise, we will have to adjust ourselves to run on only what power we can recover from solar and wind.
It's never popular to say it politically, but we can in fact do a great deal to lower our power consumption. Better consumer habits, more efficient homes and utilities, smaller cars, etc. etc. etc. If we can't solve fusion, the cost of power will force this change to take place. It's not an argument of "we shouldn't develop renewables and hydrogen because they can't deliever our current level of power." Sorry folks, it doesn't work like that. Our current level of power generation is unsustainable unless we shift almost totally to nuclear power. Peroid. We don't know exactly how long it will last, but it WILL come to an end. What is up to us is how we cope with it. I'd rather be prepared with the best we can do in alternatives. Hydrogen might allow us to run cars after we can no longer produce gasoline cheaply. Plus it's a cleaner system when the source power is produced from clean sources. It doesn't provide gluttonous power, true, but it might allow us to sustain the worthwhile parts of our lifestyle. That's why this is a development to be cheered on.
"Hint: Yahoo. Of-course it is not a search engine per se, it is a directory, and it was even using Google but it does not matter. Everyone knows Yahoo, right?"
If Yahoo's using google, that defeats the whole point of a separate search engine. Maybe they could plug in another replacement but that presupposes a) Yahoo's system is flexible enough for that and b) Yahoo would make that change if Google shafted a few small businesses. a) I'll concede as likely, b) I'm not so sure about.
"If you built your own search engine, or installed a search engine built by someone else (you know there are free search engines out there) you do not need users. You can use the search engine you built for yourself and it will be sufficient because there will be not much incoming traffic from the entire world. You will need to spend some money on the outgoing traffic because of the crawlers and you will need to setup your own server and database, but that's it. What I am saying is that everyone uses Google today, but at some point Google will go away and a search web will come out as a project (maybe from Kazaa project) where the search engine will be distributed between the web users, where everyone's computer is part of the search engine with some nodes that have more power than others based on voting and contracts between nodes."
That's an interesting idea. But if google shafts someone today, it's still a problem. Getting everyone to use something like that wouldn't be easy. Remember a large percentage of paying customers don't understand the idea of a search engine, much less different search engines. Assuming educated consumers is a bad idea. Unfortunately. It just takes too long for busy people to learn all about this computer game.
"Businesses that do not have time to wait and have no patience pay Google to be on top of search results."
Ah - but what if google refuses to sell that service to them?
"Again noone should have power to regulate Google, it is dangerous and counterproductive.
I tend to agree, but I do see some possibility for abuse by an unethical leader of google, if one should appear.
"And it is uncostitutional (I mean US constitution but I am Canadian) because all Google does is it crawls around the web and forms its own opinion of its contents and then it posts its opinion. So when you are doing a search you are relying on their opinion on what in their database is relevant to your search queue. How can anybody even start thinking about regulating someones opinion and not going against the US constitution? What about your First Amendment?"
I'm not sure if search results constitute opinion or not - that would be a fascinating legal discussion. Another interesting point raised.
"It does not help to consider Google in the same light as Windows. I mean you can consider but you will right away see how different these are. Microsoft is a convicted monopoly but you must be very arrogant to say that there are viable alternatives."
I guess it depends on how you define viable. For me, the alternatives are very viable. Microsoft isn't THAT good. Have you tried Mac and Linux?
"Mac is nice, sure but look at the desktop numbers. Linux? You must be kidding me. When you have all apps on Linux that there are on Windows then we'll talk. "
Uh - I'm using Linux right now as a desktop computer OS. Have had nothing else on my computer for three and a half years. It works beautifully. My dad has used Mac for years. Both are quite viable by any definition I've applied. They may not meet your needs but they are quite sufficient for many uses. Most people don't NEED all the apps on Windows.
"Look what happened to Hotmail when MS bought it? It used to be great, but now it is only used as a fake registration email service. Sure many millions of people use it but it is mainly used for personal email and not for profit if you discount ads. It is completely unreliable and filled with spam. If Google goes bad people will remember that there is alltheweb and teoma and other engines will spring up."
I know about Hotmail. I don't quite see your point however. People have stayed with it for personal email, as you yourself say, despite the lowering of quality of the service. That's a reason google might be dangerous in the wrong hands. People will stay with it because it is what they know. Granted it is easier to switch search engines than email, but people still need to know to make the change, and what the alternatives are. That's an effort a lot of people are not likely to care to make.
"One more time - who cares about businesses, if the market will need a search engine that is business oriented it will appear. That's it."
And it will get less traffic, because lots of people will stay with their one and only search engine rather than trouble to go to another one. (I say that because without serious reason I would ignore such a new search engine until it proves itself to be a superior service.) Businesses are worth caring about, at least the good ones are. They produce the things we use in life, and deserve a fair chance. Right now google is a good guy, and I hope they stay that way, but one has to consider the damage they could do if they went bad. Fact of life.
Slashdot Mirror
Not if OpenGL support is broken though - we want him to develop to the standard.
I say get him the minimum card available which has reasonable OpenGL support. That's the target to aim for.
Developing for broken hardware doesn't have any long term benefit. Hopefully work done here will have a lasting contribution to the future of Linux.
Because when used properly it enhances the coolness factor of the desktop. Basically the way to approach things is to have different levels of transparency depending on whether or not a window is active - if it is active, transparency should drop to a minimum so real work can go on. Most likely this should be part of desktop themes - how to handle transparency as a function of window focus. Maybe even add a scrollbar functionality to the window border at the top to temporarily override the defaults if you want to, say, write in a text editor while looking at the terminal under it. There are a few cases where it can be useful, and the rest of the time, with proper themeing, what's wrong with being cool?
Of course, I don't know if this setup can do local transparency differently on a per window basis - that will be needed before things can really happen the way they should.
IMHO "ready for the desktop" is a moving target. For goodness sake, Windows 3.1 was once a viable commercial product! Today it would be laughed off the market. If the current KDE desktop had gone up against Windows 3.1 the world would be running Linux right now. Yet many people used Windows 3.1, because it was such an improvement over what had come before.
I think Linux is entering the desktop race at an unfortunate stage. So many people are now so used to Windows that I'm not sure what can be done about it in the short term. IMHO KDE as a desktop environment can mostly stand toe to toe with Windows. But it doesn't matter, because it isn't exactly what people expect.
The number of computer users has exploded over the last ten years, until now much of the technological world is dependent on them. But that also means a lot of people and companies have standardized on one thing - Windows. There's not a whole lot you can do about that - one the decision is made and people are trained, the inertia in the system outweighs EVERY other factor.
We as geeks tend to forget this, but many people want the computer to just do its job and stay out of the way. Which really means "do what I expect". What they expect is what they are used to. Checkmate.
I consider the computer desktop to be a natural monopoly, even more so than things like phones. Phones were only a natural monopoly while there was one way to get a signal to the home, and it involved laying lots of cable. But technology changed that situation, and the people were ready to use it, because it didn't involve any significant change on their part. The monopoly with computer software, however, is driven not by technology but by the USER HIM/HERSELF. There is no solution for this problem based on technology. I know the thought is usually used in other circumstances, but it applies here - you can't apply a technical solution to a problem rooted in people. The monopoly comes from people.
Yes, Linux still has some weaknesses. But compare it to Windows 95, for example, which kicked off the PC boom. Being "desktop ready" is all relative. And in the end, I think worrying about being "desktop ready" won't make any difference, even if we are somehow defined to have "made it". I'd worry about inertia. That's the real enemy.
"And for those who want to chuck X, well, go use Windows, or suggest a better alternative. To date, I haven't seen anything close."
It isn't there yet, but http://www.fresco.org shows great promise. Given a critical mass of really good hackers working on it and its dependancies, that project could really go somewhere.
No there isn't anything ready, but Fresco might provide a good long term solution.
'Cheap Ethical Bastards'
Um. That makes no sense. Presumably you are not thrilled that people use Free/Open software without giving back to the community, and instead are using it because they don't want to pay license fees and are too honest to pirate? If more people were Cheap and Ethical rather than just Cheap Linux would be the world's leading OS right now, because no one would steal commercial software and they wouldn't want to fork over the money.
We want to encourage these people! They are mindshare, by using it they are rooting out bugs (you don't really find bugs until people are using your software) and one on a thousand may decide to eventually help a project, or help another newbie get started.
Why should we resent people using the tools we explicitly want to be open, and in most cases free as well? Does it hurt us? So they get a free lunch - the extra cost to us is nonexistant - one more download. We were gonna do this anyway - let more people benefit! Make the world a better place! And don't diss users. They're what make our software mean something.
"We get lease documents, legal notices, business proposals, ad nauseum, in word or excel format. If you can't read it, you limit your professional image and connectivity."
So have one install of openoffice to route office documents through to save as a format Koffice can read. This should work until Koffice gets its own filters. Also, you could politely request that people submitting such things submit them as RTF or PDF documents. What's wrong with that?
"K-office is compatable with k-office. Open/Star office at least has basic word compatability and functionality. Please, microsoft may suck for their draconian EULA's, their extremely high prices, their business model, etc. But they make a good office suite. Plus, like it or not, it's the world standard."
If everyone keeps treating them like a world standard, they will be forever. Someone has to begin the move away. I say if their EULA sucks, their prices suck, and their business ethics suck, I don't want to do business with them. Politely ask people who wish you to consider their documents to send them in an open format, and just be ready to process the ones that don't comply through openoffice. Don't cave in to the monopoly just because they make a good product, and ignore the rest of what they do. They'll keep right on doing it. They need to hear the $ vote walking away - nothing else has any meaning to them. Maybe it is hard to do that, but that's all the more reason to do it. Don't let Microsoft control how you do business. Good products do not excuse or justify bad practices, and Microsoft has to be taught that lesson. Not teaching it will only make things worse.
"Is there such a thing as a FREE SOFTWARE LEECH?"
I take it by this you mean someone who uses the software without giving back to the community. Um.
Stop and think about this a second. Additional users are always helpful to software. They may spot bugs, someone may suggest a feature you haven't thought of. Even if you never hear from them, they may recommend it to someone else who then helps you out. And ultimately, you were going to write the software anyway. You're a volunteer. You can always bow out and let someone else take over. So why should you resent a "leech"? You want the software to be used.
And not to mention the warm fuzzy feeling you get when your work is actually downloaded and does something useful. Remember, in the open source world the motivation is not money. (Not that it isn't nice, but it's not the main focus.)
Usually the replacement mentioned is Fresco, a.k.a Berlin. I think Fresco is a good replacement for X in the same way GNU Hurd is a good replacement for Linux. The dieas and potential are true next generation, but the implimentation is years away. Which is fine. I agree X certainly will hold us as long as it needs to.
"Solar/photovoltaic consumes almost as much energy to make solar cells as they produce over their entire lifetime and yield toxic waste"
Actually, if the solar cell can last long enough you do OK with them. But your assuming technology is static in the solar power world. It isn't.
Thin film solar power systems are in development, and they have the potential in the future to vastly decrease the amount of material, energy and waste involved producing solar cells. Don't assume the current problems are the way it will be forever. Enough work on solar will find some good solutions. There are already promising ideas out there. But we need to keep at it.
"Nerds would find their unpopularity more bearable if it merely caused them to be ignored. Unfortunately, to be unpopular in school is to be actively persecuted."
That's it in a nutshell.
"I realize that high school was not that big of a deal. (I hope everyone else realizes that) It was just another period in my life."
That's a lot like saying fifth grade homework is easy. It's a whole lot easier to say from our position than someone who is stuck in the middle of it. Don't discount the pain of someone in high school just because they will eventually move on to something else. That pain is very, very real.
High school is life to high school students. That makes it a big deal.
That's true, but inertia itself is a powerful market force. There is also the fudge factor - i.e. how much will we put up with before jumping ship to another, possibly less powerful engine? I'm betting Microsoft conditioned users would put up with a lot. And if a critical mass doesn't shift, we're stuck. Remember, google has income. If any other search engine wanted to operate on the scale of google, they would need similar funds. Which means they need users.
Google will never have the stranglehold Microsoft has, but they probably have enough power to cause a lot of trouble for a lot of people if they want to. That's the concern. Power in commercial hands is always a concern, by definition, because the profit motive has proved very bad at respecting the rights of consumers.
"If it starts to be useless, I'll go onto the next thing that's not."
Exactly - you will, and I will, but a lot of people won't. Human nature. Especially since Microsoft has gotten people used to getting screwed. See, enough people have to switch to make a critical mass for the new engine.
It doesn't matter that they can switch to a better product if they won't. Maybe they would. I hope I'm wrong.
But I doubt it.
"The 'natural monopoly' pretty much comes out of the way software works. With essencially no reproduction costs, the cost per unit is R&D cost / copies sold. Obviously this is far lower for one company than for two companies that have to split the market. Which also means that the natural monopoly can undersell any entrant that seeks to take the monopoly away from them."
Sort of, but Linux/open source are no cost alteratives who's only major barriors to entry are intertia and legacy documents/apps/users. Seems to be quite effective as a slowing mechanism. No one can undersell linux. Then we can argue about how viable linux is on the desktop, but that's another discussion.
I know. I was responding to the original poster.
"Should you fear Google? No, not until such time a law is passed - and actively enforced - that you must use it for every search, and all other search engines must cease their operations."
Google can still be a monopoly, without the law backing it and with other search engines out there. Guess I didn't say that clearly enough.
On the surface that seems reasonable, but stop and think a little more carefully for a minute.
First, I am a fan of google. I like what they do, and I use their site all the time. I hope the keep going.
HOWEVER, that does not mean that we can just write off the power they have. Since this is slashdot, I think I have a good analogy for you.
Microsoft.
Microsoft is not in any legal sense a monopoly (prior to the court ruling, anyway). No one says in law that you have to use any Microsoft product. Heck, my home machine is strictly Linux, and so far that's legal. But remember a certain court fiasco a while back, and the one bone we got tossed.
Microsoft is a monopoly.
Why did they come to that conclusion? No law says we can't use Linux or Mac. Lots of people do. Most people would agree both are better than Windows.
In the computer world, people are the cause of monopolies.
Not to say they are to blaim, although that may be true at some level. What I mean is, people create the conditions of a natural monopoly through lack of willingness/time/whatever to learn new things. There is a high cost in training time to use anything computer related. Most people have paid that price for Microsoft, and didn't enjoy the experience at all. They wouldn't change if you offered them the perfect OS, because they wouldn't want to suffer through retraining. That's why most Linux GUIs target Microsoft. Not because it's good, but because it's what people know.
Google has a massive inertia behind it. It is now, for many people, THE interface to the web. For many people, they are not going to want to put in the effort to find a new/better search engine even if google starts to do little annoying things. They'll live with it, because it is faster than researching to find a better setup. That also presupposes a better setup, which would be tough. Google has put a lot of work into this.
Thus, Google has power. Not by law, but by market reality. Thus far, they have done the right things with that power. For that they should be cheered and supported, and I'll gladly join that crowd. But no one with real power in a market can EVER be totally trusted, no matter how good they have been to their customers in the past. All it takes is a change of management and the whole thing can go down the tubes. Google is a flashy bandwagon, playing a great song. I love going along for the ride. But if they start playing yellow submarine, I'm ready to dive off. And most people aren't. And that's the (potential) problem.
Yes, that's the one. Capable, capable, capable.
I wish someone would bring out a new version of the space cadet keyboard, with Linux drivers. Learn that keyboard and you'll never need anything else. Anyone know if someone has recreated a PC version?
You measure it in dreams. This is a dream of humanity - to travel to the stars. It's as old as humanity, but its strength waxes and wanes with the tides of fortune. For thousands of years, humanity dreamed. Then, in the 20th century, they actually did it.
I don't think we can understand how profound that step was. This dream is older than us, older than our civilization, and older than any history or record that survives the ravages of time. And now we've made it real. We've seen birds fly, but nothing living on this earth above the level of virus has ever ventured beyond it. That is a unique human achievement, perhaps in a sense our greatest.
That is why this is a greater disaster. Because it hinders our pursuit of the dream. People do not stop flying because a twin-engine plane goes down. But there is a real chance our resolve will weaken, and we will let this dream slip back to the shadows. Mankind needs a dream, to reach for the unimaginable. Space is our dream. We cannot afford to lose it, or we lose much more than lives.
We all have to die. The tragic part of this is that these people will not get to see their children grow up, and their families suffer one of the greatest losses they can suffer. But if I were to pick the way I would die, daring the exploration of the stars is a great way to go. Better to die daring greatly, then remain always what might have been. That is our risk, and that is humanity's risk - that we become what might have been. We make mistakes, we suffer loss, but we dare greatness. That is what makes humanity worthwhile.
Frankly that attitude, that users aren't interested in computers, is quite dangerous. Let's look at cars as an analogy, and note the parallels. It's quite surprising how many there are.
Cars are a powerful, universal technology. A huge percentage of the US wants/needs cars. But you can't just go out to the store, buy a car, and drive away with it. You must have a drivers license, a certificate of at least minimum skill in operating the car on a road where other people are also driving and your mistakes can have adverse impacts on others. No skill, no car. Then there are mechanics, who not only can operate the car but know what goes on under the hood. These people are in the strongest position, since they control the technology.
Now think about networked computers. Powerful, universal technology, just like cars, and now essential to the way our society operates. But you don't need a license of minimum competency to purchase a computer and put it on the network. Anyone can, whether or not they know a CDROM from a coaster. The problem is, the analogy holds. People operating computers on the network without minimum ability are a hazard, because their computers can and often do become the tools of people interested in causing trouble. Granted that can happen to people at lots of skill levels, just like accidents happen to good drivers. But the greater the general skill level, the fewer accidents on the highway. Likewise, the more intelligent/educated the community on the network, the stronger the network will be.
Linux nerds are like mechanics - they know the guts and control the technology. But so many people on the net know absolutely nothing about what they are doing, and they represent a danger to the general network community. The solution is education, as usual. Since no basic training for using a computer on a network is mandated, I think the expectation for users to progress to a "power user state" is a reflection of the educated computer users' reactions to what happens when ignorance and technology collide on the net. The infastructure is not robust enough to operate without some active help from its users. Just as cars can't go from a to b safely without a reasonably educated driver. Yes, the car might make it, and the ignorant user might be fine on the net. But the odds against it are much higher, and multiplied by thousands those conditions spell trouble.
This will be entertaining. First off, this is exactly what they should have done in the first place - gone after those who were actually downloading/distributing illegal material. Second, they are going to set a record for number of lawsuits brought by any entity other than the government. Where they will fund it I don't know.
One thing it might do, if it succeeds, is limit online distribution of music to truly independant music. Then we might see them lose their grip on the music industry, because people start listening to the indie bands which will be all they can legally download. I actually hope they do succeed, now that I think about it. The internet music community is now a force in its own right, and it may be ready to have its tie strings cut. More power to the RIAA - they may be doing something which will benefit both the indie bands and hurt their bottom line. Let's get a real independant music site established - maybe some music oriented university could set it up. Strictly regulate it, get signed permission from any singers who upload songs, make them free download (in ogg format, of course) and stand back.
"If the intent is to teach business apps, Windows is the right choice because that's what businesses use."
No, no, NO! That's exactly what any good middle or high school (or liberal arts college for that matter) should NOT do. That is the single biggest reason Microsoft has a monopoly. Training on specific apps makes for inflexible users. They should have a class which exposes people to as many platforms as they possibly can, and make people learn basic operations on all of them. Then teach basic word processing and spreadsheets, also making them do basic stuff on all of them. Teach the concepts, then make people learn the different implimentations. That way, when they see another one at work, they will adapt quickly. After a certain point a person learns how the logic of most computer interfaces works, and can figure out new variations fairly quickly. THAT is what schools should be teaching. Businesses can do specific training on applications/macros/whatever that the specific job uses, and people will be fast and flexible at it once they know how to learn new computer apps.
Sorry about the rant, but that's a pet annoyance of mine.
"1. our use of this fuel continues (i wonder if early 1900's late 1800's coal there were environmentalists pushing to stop coal use and find another fuel for mass usage?)."
Probably, and they were right. Coal is extremely dirty. I do not believe that environmental concerns will outweigh personal comfort in this country. Possibly cynical, but also possibly true. We will continue to use gas as long as it is economically viable.
"2. the supply of the raw materials is really less than we'll ever use. no one knows exactly how much supply of those raw materials exists. people have guesses, and all the time they keep finding more and more. it's like it's just seeping up from some where. aliens giving energy to that inhabited planet or sum such."
I hope you aren't serious. The Earth is a finite volume, the oil on it is finite. If we try to sustain a significant percentage of the world's population at the standard of living in the US, the power consumption will increase enormously. Remember, long before we consume all the oil it will become too expensive and rare to burn up in engines. It has other imporatant uses as well.
"at any rate, i think it's much more plausable to assume that we'll NOT run out of gasoline raw materials than it is to assume."
I couldn't disagree more. In any case, the safe bet is to assume that we will run out, and think about the next step.
"from recent events i think we can assume that our usage of gasoline raw materials will decrease. this decrease will probably be slow in order to protect the huge economies built around the industry, but it looks to be in progress."
Only if we do things like drive smaller cars, use efficient appliances, and generally change how we think about energy. I don't see that happening anytime soon - SUV sales are increasing.
"you also state that you don't see hydrogen/gasoline as a power generator (able to generate power). then you state that they're both stored power. most would conclude that if they're stored power, they're able to generate power for use in a vehicle. it's more a transfer of power or energy from the source to the consumer, but it's still generating power."
Semantics, but important to how people think about fossil fuel. Gasoline STORES energy. When you burn it you are releasing stored energy. The sun generated that power over millions of years. It is a transfer of energy from a source to final release point, but the generation of the energy did not originate from the oil. It came from the sun.
"ultimately (as far as we currently know) all our power comes from that big bright think up in the sky. it gets stored in various elements around the planet and eventually we harvest it for our needs."
Nuclear power is self contained on earth, and geothermal is due to internal earth heat. Otherwise, it's pretty much the sun. That's why we need to look at how to harness that energy directly, once our stores of energy from the last few hundred million years are gone.
For those of us who haven't figured this out yet.
Obviously, hydrogen is not an energy source when used in a fuel cell. That is not its purpose. Its purpose is to be a replacement for gasoline. Gasoline is not an energy source in the same way hydrogen isn't. Gasoline is millions of years of stored solar energy.
It took millions of years to create the raw materials we use to make gasoline. Once we run out (and we will run out - we are taking it out faster than nature puts it back - it's just a question of when) we will have to either make more gas ourselves or split water to make hydrogen. There's no special difficulty hydrogen presents in this regard - anything we use to run cars is going to be in the end an energy storage device, unless we have nuclear/solar powered cars. Both are impractical, for different reasons. So we have two problems in the future - generate power to replace the huge stored supplys we current are tapping, and store it for use in automobiles.
People seem to assume hydrogen is being proposed as a power generator. FALSE. Hydrogen is being proposed as a way to store energy for use in cars, which can't generate power on site in most cases. Gas is stored power - so is hydrogen when used in a fuel cell. We can't practically create gasoline ourselves - it's much easier to split water and recover the hydrogen. Plus fuel cells are extremely clean and don't give us the byproducts gasoline does. An extra benefit.
That leaves the question of where to get the power to drive this system. That's a completely separate problem, and one of the most crucial. Solar and wind are the two major untapped as far as non-nuclear power goes. Nuclear isn't practical in the us IN ITS CURRENT FORM. Fusion power is under development, and if a power producing fusion plant can ever be created, that will provide lots of power with byproducts that decay in hundreds of years, not tens of thousands. That may be managable. Otherwise, we will have to adjust ourselves to run on only what power we can recover from solar and wind.
It's never popular to say it politically, but we can in fact do a great deal to lower our power consumption. Better consumer habits, more efficient homes and utilities, smaller cars, etc. etc. etc. If we can't solve fusion, the cost of power will force this change to take place. It's not an argument of "we shouldn't develop renewables and hydrogen because they can't deliever our current level of power." Sorry folks, it doesn't work like that. Our current level of power generation is unsustainable unless we shift almost totally to nuclear power. Peroid. We don't know exactly how long it will last, but it WILL come to an end. What is up to us is how we cope with it. I'd rather be prepared with the best we can do in alternatives. Hydrogen might allow us to run cars after we can no longer produce gasoline cheaply. Plus it's a cleaner system when the source power is produced from clean sources. It doesn't provide gluttonous power, true, but it might allow us to sustain the worthwhile parts of our lifestyle. That's why this is a development to be cheered on.
"Hint: Yahoo. Of-course it is not a search engine per se, it is a directory, and it was even using Google but it does not matter. Everyone knows Yahoo, right?"
If Yahoo's using google, that defeats the whole point of a separate search engine. Maybe they could plug in another replacement but that presupposes a) Yahoo's system is flexible enough for that and b) Yahoo would make that change if Google shafted a few small businesses. a) I'll concede as likely, b) I'm not so sure about.
"If you built your own search engine, or installed a search engine built by someone else (you know there are free search engines out there) you do not need users. You can use the search engine you built for yourself and it will be sufficient because there will be not much incoming traffic from the entire world. You will need to spend some money on the outgoing traffic because of the crawlers and you will need to setup your own server and database, but that's it. What I am saying is that everyone uses Google today, but at some point Google will go away and a search web will come out as a project (maybe from Kazaa project) where the search engine will be distributed between the web users, where everyone's computer is part of the search engine with some nodes that have more power than others based on voting and contracts between nodes."
That's an interesting idea. But if google shafts someone today, it's still a problem. Getting everyone to use something like that wouldn't be easy. Remember a large percentage of paying customers don't understand the idea of a search engine, much less different search engines. Assuming educated consumers is a bad idea. Unfortunately. It just takes too long for busy people to learn all about this computer game.
"Businesses that do not have time to wait and have no patience pay Google to be on top of search results."
Ah - but what if google refuses to sell that service to them?
"Again noone should have power to regulate Google, it is dangerous and counterproductive.
I tend to agree, but I do see some possibility for abuse by an unethical leader of google, if one should appear.
"And it is uncostitutional (I mean US constitution but I am Canadian) because all Google does is it crawls around the web and forms its own opinion of its contents and then it posts its opinion. So when you are doing a search you are relying on their opinion on what in their database is relevant to your search queue. How can anybody even start thinking about regulating someones opinion and not going against the US constitution? What about your First Amendment?"
I'm not sure if search results constitute opinion or not - that would be a fascinating legal discussion. Another interesting point raised.
"It does not help to consider Google in the same light as Windows. I mean you can consider but you will right away see how different these are. Microsoft is a convicted monopoly but you must be very arrogant to say that there are viable alternatives."
I guess it depends on how you define viable. For me, the alternatives are very viable. Microsoft isn't THAT good. Have you tried Mac and Linux?
"Mac is nice, sure but look at the desktop numbers. Linux? You must be kidding me. When you have all apps on Linux that there are on Windows then we'll talk. "
Uh - I'm using Linux right now as a desktop computer OS. Have had nothing else on my computer for three and a half years. It works beautifully.
My dad has used Mac for years. Both are quite viable by any definition I've applied. They may not meet your needs but they are quite sufficient for many uses. Most people don't NEED all the apps on Windows.
"Look what happened to Hotmail when MS bought it? It used to be great, but now it is only used as a fake registration email service. Sure many millions of people use it but it is mainly used for personal email and not for profit if you discount ads. It is completely unreliable and filled with spam. If Google goes bad people will remember that there is alltheweb and teoma and other engines will spring up."
I know about Hotmail. I don't quite see your point however. People have stayed with it for personal email, as you yourself say, despite the lowering of quality of the service. That's a reason google might be dangerous in the wrong hands. People will stay with it because it is what they know. Granted it is easier to switch search engines than email, but people still need to know to make the change, and what the alternatives are. That's an effort a lot of people are not likely to care to make.
"One more time - who cares about businesses, if the market will need a search engine that is business oriented it will appear. That's it."
And it will get less traffic, because lots of people will stay with their one and only search engine rather than trouble to go to another one. (I say that because without serious reason I would ignore such a new search engine until it proves itself to be a superior service.) Businesses are worth caring about, at least the good ones are. They produce the things we use in life, and deserve a fair chance. Right now google is a good guy, and I hope they stay that way, but one has to consider the damage they could do if they went bad. Fact of life.