So often a used copy of a book, even with shipping, is still less than the ebook price, and you actually own the darn thing with no DRM or other nonsense. You can make your own ebook with a scanner and 45 minutes of your time if you really have to have that.
The anti-apple hate here is just... something else.
There may be some hate being spewed, but for the most part those of us who aren't Apple fans (or for that matter Microsoft fans) have neither the need nor the desire to hate.
We simply go our own way and aren't bothered by products we don't use.
I use the headphone jack all the time. I'm not about to replace all my wired headphones/earbuds, some of which are of high audio quality.
As to the audio volume issue, that's legit for both Bluetooth and wired. To fix it I had to root the phone and edit a config file to increase the hard-coded maximums.
Of course you're right --- but it may not necessarily be due to corporate influence (although it could be). Distro support often relies on a limited set of volunteers with limited time, and they can only do so much. Supporting a 32-bit distro may fall far down on the list or fall off completely.
But as I said, I'll manage. Nothing to stop me from running an older distro for a long time. It's not like an 8-year old netbook is going to suddenly acquire new hardware needing new drivers.
Linux is successful. It's in servers, it's embedded in small devices, it's the basis for many smartphones, and it's on lots of desktops (installed those who want it), it gives new life to old hardware, and it's a great choice for non-technical users such as seniors who just want to browse, do email, etc. (Or they can use a tablet which is likely Linux/Android based).
So the question "When is the year of Linux on the desktop?" is now just meant as a put-down, to say that Linux will never really succeed.
But that train has already departed. Sorry, but Linux is a huge success and pointing to its small share of a rapidly dwindling desktop market won't change that.
When there is A (singular) company that sells and supports A (singular) Linux, and makes it so easy to use that any (ANY) grandmother can use it, then (maybe) there will be Linux on some desktops. Until that time, Only geeks need apply.
This actually already exists: WOW! Computer (mywowcomputer.com). It's ridiculously expensive for what it is, but I suppose you could call it a proof of concept. I've seen a free distro that amounts to the same thing but don't recall the name.
Maybe YOU should read them. You need a commercial license if you want to produce closed-source proprietary products. You can still sell your product / offer support, etc., without a commercial license, you just have to provide source.
Exactly this -- although I don't necessarily recommend Windows. I recommend whichever operating system they are already most familiar with.
That's eminently sensible. However, if the needs are basic and the prospective user is not a "computer type" --- I might just install Linux for them.
I did that for my wife, who uses Linux and doesn't know it's Linux, and doesn't care, because she can do her browser-based stuff and maybe view some photos or documents off-line, and maybe play a simple game or two.
For basic needs, Linux is certainly no harder to use than Windows.
And when problems pop up (quite infrequent), then this "basic user" wouldn't be able to fix them whether it was Linux or Windows or Mac.
Like another poster here, I have a 32-bit only netbook that despite being over 8 years old, still works perfectly (that idea of substituting an SSD for the old HD is appealing).
Similar use case: as a portable for mostly doing writing and editing. Something to take on travel and not worry so much about it being stolen or confiscated at the border. It's perfect for such use. Why trash it? I buy a new battery every few years and that's it. (Batteries can still be easily obtained.)
32-bit distros are useful to me, and I am sure there are many others like me. Still, I'll find a way to make it work, it'll just be more effort.
The corner cases are important, why choose an alternative platform that supports 90% of things when the incumbent platform supports 100% of them?
Because, as I've said many times: freedom, control, openness.
Of course we all want to see Linux broaden its appeal. And you make a decent point by saying that Linux has to offer something more in order to get people to look at it. I believe that freedom, control, and openness --- especially freedom from built-in spyware --- are good selling points.
The big elephant in the room hasn't come up in this thread, which is surprising. High-end gamers are probably always going to be on Windows, and they're a big enough group not to be considered a corner case. My opinion and use cases might be different if up-to-date gaming was of interest to me. But my checkers, chess, go, and Skat programs all run with Linux Wine. That actually says a lot as to how far Wine has come, but it's certainly not the answer to everything or even most things.
This ignores the fact that Linux solves 100% of the use cases for a large percentage of users, and might be chosen by them because it's free and open.
I keep hearing things like "LibreOffice is inferior to MS Office" and "GIMP is inferior to Photoshop" when in fact the same arguments apply: LO and GIMP probably provide what 90% of users need. The upper end market, who truly need (say) Photoshop, are indeed corner cases.
I do a lot more than web surfing and office suite stuff, and Linux satisfies 100% of my use cases. The last remaining "lack" had been decent scanning and OCR but that's been solved now for several years. As to GIMP, I've done book covers, posters, flyers, etc. with no problem.
You raise valid questions, but the original assertion was that Linux doesn't have decent presentation software, and the scope of my reply including that, and no more.
But I will answer you briefly: Linux offers openness, freedom, and control. It also does everything I need with increasingly little in the way of limitations for the things I need to do. That's why I use it. Whether that line of thought and practice provides a sufficient business case for others is up to them to decide. Obviously, we should use what works for us. I'm not at all from the school that says everyone should be on Linux. Some should, some shouldn't, and for many it probably doesn't matter either way.
Slashdot Mirror
So often a used copy of a book, even with shipping, is still less than the ebook price, and you actually own the darn thing with no DRM or other nonsense. You can make your own ebook with a scanner and 45 minutes of your time if you really have to have that.
I'm wondering what you're getting at with your multiple AC posts in multiple threads.
You should know that Linux zealots (such as I am to some degree) who are deriving value from Linux each and every day, will never agree with you.
Is it trying to be an irritant (with, I must admit, some success) what drives you? Does that give you some sort of psychological boost?
To each his own. Just don't expect to convert anyone to your viewpoint.
Fine, keep on hating if you wish, and see how much it accomplishes. Far easier to simply ignore MS and Apple and simply not be bothered.
The anti-apple hate here is just ... something else.
There may be some hate being spewed, but for the most part those of us who aren't Apple fans (or for that matter Microsoft fans) have neither the need nor the desire to hate.
We simply go our own way and aren't bothered by products we don't use.
I use the headphone jack all the time. I'm not about to replace all my wired headphones/earbuds, some of which are of high audio quality.
As to the audio volume issue, that's legit for both Bluetooth and wired. To fix it I had to root the phone and edit a config file to increase the hard-coded maximums.
I'm glad it worked out for you. I've survived two different cancers and I wouldn't have, had I been born 30 or 40 years earlier.
I don't understand some of the negative posting here. What's not to like about earlier detection, better treatment, and more positive outcomes?
To those of you who might think it's a big joke, I truly hope you never have to find out you were wrong.
Of course, open source software is a bug fest.
And as a corollary, proprietary software (like Windows) would then be practically bug-free?
It takes courage to build a phone that splits open.
Of course you're right --- but it may not necessarily be due to corporate influence (although it could be). Distro support often relies on a limited set of volunteers with limited time, and they can only do so much. Supporting a 32-bit distro may fall far down on the list or fall off completely.
But as I said, I'll manage. Nothing to stop me from running an older distro for a long time. It's not like an 8-year old netbook is going to suddenly acquire new hardware needing new drivers.
Linux is successful. It's in servers, it's embedded in small devices, it's the basis for many smartphones, and it's on lots of desktops (installed those who want it), it gives new life to old hardware, and it's a great choice for non-technical users such as seniors who just want to browse, do email, etc. (Or they can use a tablet which is likely Linux/Android based).
So the question "When is the year of Linux on the desktop?" is now just meant as a put-down, to say that Linux will never really succeed.
But that train has already departed. Sorry, but Linux is a huge success and pointing to its small share of a rapidly dwindling desktop market won't change that.
When there is A (singular) company that sells and supports A (singular) Linux, and makes it so easy to use that any (ANY) grandmother can use it, then (maybe) there will be Linux on some desktops. Until that time, Only geeks need apply.
This actually already exists: WOW! Computer (mywowcomputer.com). It's ridiculously expensive for what it is, but I suppose you could call it a proof of concept. I've seen a free distro that amounts to the same thing but don't recall the name.
No, it's not exactly conquering the world.
Go read Qt's commercial terms,
Maybe YOU should read them. You need a commercial license if you want to produce closed-source proprietary products. You can still sell your product / offer support, etc., without a commercial license, you just have to provide source.
And Qt is not the only game in town.
Exactly this -- although I don't necessarily recommend Windows. I recommend whichever operating system they are already most familiar with.
That's eminently sensible. However, if the needs are basic and the prospective user is not a "computer type" --- I might just install Linux for them.
I did that for my wife, who uses Linux and doesn't know it's Linux, and doesn't care, because she can do her browser-based stuff and maybe view some photos or documents off-line, and maybe play a simple game or two.
For basic needs, Linux is certainly no harder to use than Windows.
And when problems pop up (quite infrequent), then this "basic user" wouldn't be able to fix them whether it was Linux or Windows or Mac.
Like another poster here, I have a 32-bit only netbook that despite being over 8 years old, still works perfectly (that idea of substituting an SSD for the old HD is appealing).
Similar use case: as a portable for mostly doing writing and editing. Something to take on travel and not worry so much about it being stolen or confiscated at the border. It's perfect for such use. Why trash it? I buy a new battery every few years and that's it. (Batteries can still be easily obtained.)
32-bit distros are useful to me, and I am sure there are many others like me. Still, I'll find a way to make it work, it'll just be more effort.
Come on, it takes courage to drain a battery so quickly.
I live in VB.
I prefer to live in Emacs.
Journalism has taken a nosedive in the last five-years.
I wouldn't use "journalism" and "Slashdot" in the same sentence.
'Bout 0.03 hogshead-head-diameters or, of course, 0.00011 furlongs.
Wonder how many fortnights it took to build it?
The corner cases are important, why choose an alternative platform that supports 90% of things when the incumbent platform supports 100% of them?
Because, as I've said many times: freedom, control, openness.
Of course we all want to see Linux broaden its appeal. And you make a decent point by saying that Linux has to offer something more in order to get people to look at it. I believe that freedom, control, and openness --- especially freedom from built-in spyware --- are good selling points.
The big elephant in the room hasn't come up in this thread, which is surprising. High-end gamers are probably always going to be on Windows, and they're a big enough group not to be considered a corner case. My opinion and use cases might be different if up-to-date gaming was of interest to me. But my checkers, chess, go, and Skat programs all run with Linux Wine. That actually says a lot as to how far Wine has come, but it's certainly not the answer to everything or even most things.
This ignores the fact that Linux solves 100% of the use cases for a large percentage of users, and might be chosen by them because it's free and open.
I keep hearing things like "LibreOffice is inferior to MS Office" and "GIMP is inferior to Photoshop" when in fact the same arguments apply: LO and GIMP probably provide what 90% of users need. The upper end market, who truly need (say) Photoshop, are indeed corner cases.
I do a lot more than web surfing and office suite stuff, and Linux satisfies 100% of my use cases. The last remaining "lack" had been decent scanning and OCR but that's been solved now for several years. As to GIMP, I've done book covers, posters, flyers, etc. with no problem.
Then why are you (presumably) in the business of switching small businesses to Linux, if it won't work for them?
As I've made clear above, I'm all for Linux because it's right for me (and many, many others).
But if it's not a fit, and something else is ... leave things alone.
They told me, "Ha, you think you're so smart?"
You raise valid questions, but the original assertion was that Linux doesn't have decent presentation software, and the scope of my reply including that, and no more.
But I will answer you briefly: Linux offers openness, freedom, and control. It also does everything I need with increasingly little in the way of limitations for the things I need to do. That's why I use it. Whether that line of thought and practice provides a sufficient business case for others is up to them to decide. Obviously, we should use what works for us. I'm not at all from the school that says everyone should be on Linux. Some should, some shouldn't, and for many it probably doesn't matter either way.
Have you ever presented at an actual business? The razzle dazzle is the only part that counts at the end of the day.
Presented stuff many, many times, but to be fair, it was almost always technical stuff where content mattered.
Have you ever tried eggs on top of spaghetti? Yuck.
Obviously you never tried carbonara.