Apple sells Apple computers. An "Apple computer" combines Apple hardware and an Apple OS. Not only would hell have to freeze over, but it would need to be at absolute zero before Apple starts diminshing their brand presence by selling an OS X that runs on non-Apple hardware.
You read me wrong. I really don't care if Linux is a successful "product" or not. II stopped using it last year.) I'm just tossing out some opinions in response to frequent posts here apparently arguing that the only thing keeping Linux from replacing Windows on desktops across the globe is evil intent in Redmond. I don't believe that's true, by a long shot. If someone actually wants Linux to be the dominant desktop player, then, I believe, they need to follow something akin to my suggestions.
As for "Linux the product"...Well, the word "product" is not a pejorative. It simply reflects reality, unlike, I think, things like the "Linux movement" and "community", etc.
Agree that people are very unlikely to dump the OS that came with their PC and replace it with another OS. That's why I think Linux won't make desktop inroads until it offers something that users feel they must have and cannot get in any other OS.
If PC vendors put Linux on machines, yes, they'd have a theoretical cost advantage, but -- because people will know that Linux cost them nothing -- they'll need to drop the sales price accordingly. Also, Microsoft can't be expected to remain idle if Linux machines begin to cut into its markets. They an drop prices, too. Or, do something dramatic, like release a $200 Windows box.
The important thing to remember is that Linux doesn't need to "conquer" Windows to be a commercial success. It just needs to carve out a segment of the desktop market that's big enough to support and sustain a core of vendors, but not big enough to draw Microsoft's wrath.
No, Apple isn;t going to replace Windows, but that's not the point. Here's the point: You can't get a product into mainstream commercial distribution channels unless you charge something for it. That's what stores do: they sell things. A focus on the no-cost aspect of Linux will doom it to remain a tool for geeks and admins.
Yes, but if the goal is to attract users to Linux, and Linux only, then porting an app to other platforms works against that goal. And, yes, Perl, Apache and gcc all run on Windows, but, by definition, none of them are end-user applications.
Whether the goal is actually to attract users to Linux or to keep it a plaything of geeks and afficianados is hard to judge, going by comments on/. and other fora.
Nope. Not just better versions of word processors, spreadsheets, or whatever. That's been done. Something entirely new and available only on Linux that meets a compelling need users did not know they had. Think VisiCalc.
Well, I stopped using Redhat at 7.3 and hadn't yet noticed that an installation automatically migrated data and files created with Windows programs. I don't mean keeping a Windows partition and telling the user to point his Linux apps at it. I mean automatically migrating that data to a Linux partition, configuring the Linux apps so the user doesn't need to go hunting around for it in unfamiliar territory, and making the old Windows partition unnecessary. Maybe 8.0 does that, but I can't find a mention of it on the Redhat site.
I'm curious what apps in 8.0, or anywhere else in Linux-land, provide new capabilities that aren't available in proprietary, commercial software. Linux needs new compelling and unique applications if it hopes to draw mainstream users. Not better word processors, or spreadsheets, or image manipulation programs, (why switch from Office on Windows to Applixware on Linux if you're happy with Office?) but something that mainstream customers want to use and is only available on Linux.
Frankly, I don't care if Linux wins the desktop. I dropped Linux when OS X became viable. that said...
>>...nobody seems to have any real suggestions for improvements over Windows apps...
Good ideas are hard to come by. I certainly don't have any. But this argument leads in the direction of asserting that no more software applications remain to be invented and that incremental evolution of existing code is all that's left. I don't really believe that.
>> If people wanted to pay for software, Kazaa would not exist.
Kazaa exists because some people don't want to pay for pop music that exists only because other people continue to pay for it through legitimate channels. Your preferences don't reflect how most people will continue to acquire software -- buying it via the same kinds of distribution channels where they buy everything else.
>>...before you convince ordinary people that Linux is for them, you have to educate them to some extent about computers. And you still haven't addressed how to create this "wedge" to begin with. Many would also argue that we don't want "stupid", "ordinary" people messing with Linux, as they won't contribute anything to the community anyway..
This statement is an example of unwarranted Linux elitism, as indicated by your equation of "ordinary" with "stupid". You're implying that the only people "worthy" of using Linux are people with the time and interest to learn technical minutiae. That's absurd. An interest in computers is no more a marker of "intelligence" than is an interest in driving a car or watching television. Should automobiles be so complex and unwieldy that effective use requires a study of mechanical engineering? Should watching television require knowledge of electronics? Computers are appliances and need to be as simple to use as possible. Follow your suggested path and Linux will be a cult relegated to a snobbish and self-congratulatory decreasing few. (In any case, I don't believe in all that "community" nonsense.)
>> And what about IP address or dialup login info? And what about username and password? And what about every Windows patch breaking the formats just enough that they wouldn't import anymore?
The point is that easy installation routines are not enough. What good does it do for someone to install Linux and lose all their data in the process? If I have a working Internet connection, why should I want to hassle with setting it up again in a new and unfamiliar OS? Sure, in theory people might backup data elsewhere and roll it over onto their new Linux machine. But, that assumes they have another machine. It also assumes that they see the benefits of Linux as being greater than the pain and hassle of making that effort. Truth is, if your an Office/Outlook/Explorer user, why bother? As for Microsoft tweaking file formats...well, that's life in the Big Leagues.
>> Application support for Linux is on par with Windows as far as 'just as good' apps are concerned in all areas except games...
Dunno know about games...they bore me. Your assertion that Linux apps are "just as good" as Windows apps may or may not be true, but in the end, it is irrelevant. The perception one develops visiting most Linux websites or examining most of the few shrinkwrapped products available on shelves (as opposed to RedHat and SuSe) is that Linux is enthusiastically supported by amateurs, boffins and afficianados for whom the sense of "belonging" to that alleged "community" you mentioned is more important that mainstream acceptance.
Servers are invisible. Linux could run on every server in the world and remain essentially unknown to desktop users.
No matter how good Linux is from a technical pespective, it won't threaten Microsoft on the desktop until Linux developers offer consumers a non-ideological incentive to go to all the hassle and risk of abandoning Windows. I think it will take something along these lines:
1) Create Linux applications that do compelling and unique things that Microsoft apps don't (being "as good as" Office won't cut it for most people, any more than Texturized Soy Protein outsells real beef);
2) Slap a $39.95 price sticker on those apps, write good documentation, stuff 'em in cute shrinkwrapped boxes and get them onto store shelves;
3) Create a "wedge" of non-geek, non-techie "real" people using Linux and exploit their existence to the hilt. Convince ordinary people that Linux is for them. (See Apple's "Switch" campaign.)
4. Build Linux installation software that allows a new user to stick a CD in the slot, click "Go", walk away, and come back 15 minutes later to find Windows gone, Linux up and running, and all his Windows-created data and files preserved and migrated to the right Linux apps.
Slapping new paint on X won't make it commercially viable anymore than slapping new paint on a broken down barn will turn it into a luxury condominium. You'd be just as likely to make money trying to sell software gizmos that make Windows look like KDE or Gnome.
The world is replete with great free and open software. and it's a good thing that it's free, because it is also essentially unsellable. Take the hint: Consumers expect less when something is free. Stop making pointless cosmetic interface changes and try to build some apps that people are willing to buy.
>> Now they are a company and need to make money. So far so good. However, it is not me who will buy the boxed set of CDs. It is way too expensive...
Well, if they now know that you're not going to buy it, it doesn't make much sense for SuSe to give it away for free, thereby cutting into sales to people who would otherwise pay for it.
Seems to me that if you can't be bothered to make a phone call or send an email to ask what kind of OS they use, then maybe it isn't that important to you.
I didn't state my opinion of EULA's in my posts (look again, it's not there), but I agree that they're weak legally.But, if that's the case, so is your's.
Why do you think your college was obligated to give you a choice of computer vendor? Did you get to pick the kind of chairs they put in the classrooms?
If using somehing besides PS/2's was so important, you should have checked it out before you committed to attending.
You haven't made the case that simply swapping out Microsoft software for something else is going to benefit students. Ideology aside, it is a very hard case to make. Except for computer science students ( who should be, and almost certainly already are, exposed to a variety of vendors and software), how would using, say, Linux instead of Windows benefit all students any more than swapping out Buicks for Fords?
All this prattle about the legality of EULA's on/. is rather pointless and juvenile, but the fact is that you had the option of not installing that software if you didn't like the EULA, and the compnay that produced it had no opportunity to agree with your "EULA" before they sold it to you. You're attempting to alter the responsibilities of a seller after the transaction is complete.
You may hold a different opinion, but opinons don't count in issues like this.
This is an image of the Chicxulub impact site. The sinkholes outline the perimeter. How'f you get from This formed the trough as well as numerous sinkholes... to calling the crater "a sinkhole"?
Difficult to prove that in court. There's a good chance that the cable company might "donate" a replacement modem rather than go to the hassle and expense of showing up in court (likely to cost them more than the price of a cable modem). On the other hand, they might decide to be obstreperous and contest it.
There is never a single "correct" ethical choice. Recognize that what seems "dubious" to you may be seen as desirable and beneficial by others, and vice versa. Make your own decision and don't worry if anyone else sees it as "correct".
Deterrence only works if your enemy has sense enough to want to avoid destruction. If that's not the case, all bets are off. The Soviets and the U.S. deterred each other from using nukes during the Cold War because both sides understood, and wanted to avoid at all costs, that kind of exchange. But, if your enemy is a loon, nothing may deter him.
Given a laser with sufficient range, you don't need to come anywhere near an enemy's airspace. You can stay comfortably in the airspace of a neighboring country or over international waters. In those circumstances, any hostile act against the 747 wouldn't "practically" be an act of war, it would be, literally, an act of war.
>> I really can't see the use of a laser mounted in a 747. IMHO, it's way too slow compared to the missiles, and will not be able to scramble fast enough...
You could mount the thing on a Krispy Kreme truck as long as you had line-of-sight to the target. Speed of light is just a tad faster any than missile.
And you don't scramble them. You keep them in the air patrolling.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple sells Apple computers. An "Apple computer" combines Apple hardware and an Apple OS. Not only would hell have to freeze over, but it would need to be at absolute zero before Apple starts diminshing their brand presence by selling an OS X that runs on non-Apple hardware.
>> What is the point of having a closed source browser? I mean what are you going to gain?
For starters, control of your company's products.
Then there's the notion of adding unique features and other goodies so you can attract more customers.
Apple's business is to sell Apple computers. I'm guessing that every move they make has that objective in mind.
Works for me.
You read me wrong. I really don't care if Linux is a successful "product" or not. II stopped using it last year.) I'm just tossing out some opinions in response to frequent posts here apparently arguing that the only thing keeping Linux from replacing Windows on desktops across the globe is evil intent in Redmond. I don't believe that's true, by a long shot. If someone actually wants Linux to be the dominant desktop player, then, I believe, they need to follow something akin to my suggestions.
As for "Linux the product"...Well, the word "product" is not a pejorative. It simply reflects reality, unlike, I think, things like the "Linux movement" and "community", etc.
Agree that people are very unlikely to dump the OS that came with their PC and replace it with another OS. That's why I think Linux won't make desktop inroads until it offers something that users feel they must have and cannot get in any other OS.
If PC vendors put Linux on machines, yes, they'd have a theoretical cost advantage, but -- because people will know that Linux cost them nothing -- they'll need to drop the sales price accordingly. Also, Microsoft can't be expected to remain idle if Linux machines begin to cut into its markets. They an drop prices, too. Or, do something dramatic, like release a $200 Windows box.
The important thing to remember is that Linux doesn't need to "conquer" Windows to be a commercial success. It just needs to carve out a segment of the desktop market that's big enough to support and sustain a core of vendors, but not big enough to draw Microsoft's wrath.
No, Apple isn;t going to replace Windows, but that's not the point. Here's the point: You can't get a product into mainstream commercial distribution channels unless you charge something for it. That's what stores do: they sell things. A focus on the no-cost aspect of Linux will doom it to remain a tool for geeks and admins.
Yes, but if the goal is to attract users to Linux, and Linux only, then porting an app to other platforms works against that goal. And, yes, Perl, Apache and gcc all run on Windows, but, by definition, none of them are end-user applications.
/. and other fora.
Whether the goal is actually to attract users to Linux or to keep it a plaything of geeks and afficianados is hard to judge, going by comments on
Nope. Not just better versions of word processors, spreadsheets, or whatever. That's been done. Something entirely new and available only on Linux that meets a compelling need users did not know they had. Think VisiCalc.
Well, I stopped using Redhat at 7.3 and hadn't yet noticed that an installation automatically migrated data and files created with Windows programs. I don't mean keeping a Windows partition and telling the user to point his Linux apps at it. I mean automatically migrating that data to a Linux partition, configuring the Linux apps so the user doesn't need to go hunting around for it in unfamiliar territory, and making the old Windows partition unnecessary. Maybe 8.0 does that, but I can't find a mention of it on the Redhat site.
I'm curious what apps in 8.0, or anywhere else in Linux-land, provide new capabilities that aren't available in proprietary, commercial software. Linux needs new compelling and unique applications if it hopes to draw mainstream users. Not better word processors, or spreadsheets, or image manipulation programs, (why switch from Office on Windows to Applixware on Linux if you're happy with Office?) but something that mainstream customers want to use and is only available on Linux.
Frankly, I don't care if Linux wins the desktop. I dropped Linux when OS X became viable. that said...
...nobody seems to have any real suggestions for improvements over Windows apps...
...before you convince ordinary people that Linux is for them, you have to educate them to some extent about computers. And you still haven't addressed how to create this "wedge" to begin with. Many would also argue that we don't want "stupid", "ordinary" people messing with Linux, as they won't contribute anything to the community anyway..
>>
Good ideas are hard to come by. I certainly don't have any. But this argument leads in the direction of asserting that no more software applications remain to be invented and that incremental evolution of existing code is all that's left. I don't really believe that.
>> If people wanted to pay for software, Kazaa would not exist.
Kazaa exists because some people don't want to pay for pop music that exists only because other people continue to pay for it through legitimate channels. Your preferences don't reflect how most people will continue to acquire software -- buying it via the same kinds of distribution channels where they buy everything else.
>>
This statement is an example of unwarranted Linux elitism, as indicated by your equation of "ordinary" with "stupid". You're implying that the only people "worthy" of using Linux are people with the time and interest to learn technical minutiae. That's absurd. An interest in computers is no more a marker of "intelligence" than is an interest in driving a car or watching television. Should automobiles be so complex and unwieldy that effective use requires a study of mechanical engineering? Should watching television require knowledge of electronics? Computers are appliances and need to be as simple to use as possible. Follow your suggested path and Linux will be a cult relegated to a snobbish and self-congratulatory decreasing few. (In any case, I don't believe in all that "community" nonsense.)
>> And what about IP address or dialup login info? And what about username and password? And what about every Windows patch breaking the formats just enough that they wouldn't import anymore?
The point is that easy installation routines are not enough. What good does it do for someone to install Linux and lose all their data in the process? If I have a working Internet connection, why should I want to hassle with setting it up again in a new and unfamiliar OS? Sure, in theory people might backup data elsewhere and roll it over onto their new Linux machine. But, that assumes they have another machine. It also assumes that they see the benefits of Linux as being greater than the pain and hassle of making that effort. Truth is, if your an Office/Outlook/Explorer user, why bother? As for Microsoft tweaking file formats...well, that's life in the Big Leagues.
>> Application support for Linux is on par with Windows as far as 'just as good' apps are concerned in all areas except games...
Dunno know about games...they bore me. Your assertion that Linux apps are "just as good" as Windows apps may or may not be true, but in the end, it is irrelevant. The perception one develops visiting most Linux websites or examining most of the few shrinkwrapped products available on shelves (as opposed to RedHat and SuSe) is that Linux is enthusiastically supported by amateurs, boffins and afficianados for whom the sense of "belonging" to that alleged "community" you mentioned is more important that mainstream acceptance.
Servers are invisible. Linux could run on every server in the world and remain essentially unknown to desktop users.
No matter how good Linux is from a technical pespective, it won't threaten Microsoft on the desktop until Linux developers offer consumers a non-ideological incentive to go to all the hassle and risk of abandoning Windows. I think it will take something along these lines:
1) Create Linux applications that do compelling and unique things that Microsoft apps don't (being "as good as" Office won't cut it for most people, any more than Texturized Soy Protein outsells real beef);
2) Slap a $39.95 price sticker on those apps, write good documentation, stuff 'em in cute shrinkwrapped boxes and get them onto store shelves;
3) Create a "wedge" of non-geek, non-techie "real" people using Linux and exploit their existence to the hilt. Convince ordinary people that Linux is for them. (See Apple's "Switch" campaign.)
4. Build Linux installation software that allows a new user to stick a CD in the slot, click "Go", walk away, and come back 15 minutes later to find Windows gone, Linux up and running, and all his Windows-created data and files preserved and migrated to the right Linux apps.
Good luck, and have fun.
Slapping new paint on X won't make it commercially viable anymore than slapping new paint on a broken down barn will turn it into a luxury condominium. You'd be just as likely to make money trying to sell software gizmos that make Windows look like KDE or Gnome.
The world is replete with great free and open software. and it's a good thing that it's free, because it is also essentially unsellable. Take the hint: Consumers expect less when something is free. Stop making pointless cosmetic interface changes and try to build some apps that people are willing to buy.
>> Now they are a company and need to make money. So far so good. However, it is not me who will buy the boxed set of CDs. It is way too expensive...
Well, if they now know that you're not going to buy it, it doesn't make much sense for SuSe to give it away for free, thereby cutting into sales to people who would otherwise pay for it.
Seems to me that if you can't be bothered to make a phone call or send an email to ask what kind of OS they use, then maybe it isn't that important to you.
I didn't state my opinion of EULA's in my posts (look again, it's not there), but I agree that they're weak legally.But, if that's the case, so is your's.
Why do you think your college was obligated to give you a choice of computer vendor? Did you get to pick the kind of chairs they put in the classrooms?
If using somehing besides PS/2's was so important, you should have checked it out before you committed to attending.
You haven't made the case that simply swapping out Microsoft software for something else is going to benefit students. Ideology aside, it is a very hard case to make. Except for computer science students ( who should be, and almost certainly already are, exposed to a variety of vendors and software), how would using, say, Linux instead of Windows benefit all students any more than swapping out Buicks for Fords?
All this prattle about the legality of EULA's on /. is rather pointless and juvenile, but the fact is that you had the option of not installing that software if you didn't like the EULA, and the compnay that produced it had no opportunity to agree with your "EULA" before they sold it to you. You're attempting to alter the responsibilities of a seller after the transaction is complete.
You may hold a different opinion, but opinons don't count in issues like this.
Nice try. Did those evil companies receive and agree with your EULA before you bought their product?
This is an image of the Chicxulub impact site. The sinkholes outline the perimeter. How'f you get from This formed the trough as well as numerous sinkholes... to calling the crater "a sinkhole"?
>> They broke your property...
Difficult to prove that in court. There's a good chance that the cable company might "donate" a replacement modem rather than go to the hassle and expense of showing up in court (likely to cost them more than the price of a cable modem). On the other hand, they might decide to be obstreperous and contest it.
There is never a single "correct" ethical choice. Recognize that what seems "dubious" to you may be seen as desirable and beneficial by others, and vice versa. Make your own decision and don't worry if anyone else sees it as "correct".
Deterrence only works if your enemy has sense enough to want to avoid destruction. If that's not the case, all bets are off. The Soviets and the U.S. deterred each other from using nukes during the Cold War because both sides understood, and wanted to avoid at all costs, that kind of exchange. But, if your enemy is a loon, nothing may deter him.
Given a laser with sufficient range, you don't need to come anywhere near an enemy's airspace. You can stay comfortably in the airspace of a neighboring country or over international waters. In those circumstances, any hostile act against the 747 wouldn't "practically" be an act of war, it would be, literally, an act of war.
You don't need nearby air bases or carriers. With airborne refueling, the 747 has global range.
>> I really can't see the use of a laser mounted in a 747. IMHO, it's way too slow compared to the missiles, and will not be able to scramble fast enough...
You could mount the thing on a Krispy Kreme truck as long as you had line-of-sight to the target. Speed of light is just a tad faster any than missile.
And you don't scramble them. You keep them in the air patrolling.