desktop applications, ease of use, driver support, printer support, etc: only if you are talking about Windows desktop apps, Windows driver support, Windows printer support, etc. . . .
You wouldn't buy a Sun workstation and expect all your windows garbage to work on it, would you?
You wouldn't buy an xbox and expect PS2 games to work on it, would you?
If I'm building a system from scratch, I can build a system with working drivers/printers on either Windows or Linux.
Don't expect Linux to work perfectly on *any* Windows hardware; it doesn't. You have to plan your purchases out before hand. You're like the people who claim Linux is hard to install; well, guess what, so is Windows-- but most people don't have to install it because its preinstalled. Buy linux preinstalled, and guess what, its just as easy as Windows! In terms of actual difficulty, I find SuSE more convenient than XP to install. Fewer reboots, fewer driver downloads needed.
Installing software in linux is much easier than windows. Why? Because it all comes preinstalled as part of the OS. Could you build a recovery disk to make the operation as easy in Windows? Sure. See what I mean about comparing Apples to Oranges?
SuSE works out-of-the-box for most people. If you install stuff that comes with installers, or uses RPMs, you never have to leave the GUI. You never have to mess with maintenance. So whats the difficulty?
Yes, running Windows apps on Linux is tougher than running Windows apps on Windows. Duh.
For the most part, however, when you compare Linux apps on Linux versus Windows apps on Windows, Linux provides a much easier installation process, easier integrated updates, perfect ease of use, and lower overall costs.
Installing random alpha-state crap from source? Yes, thats tough. And stupid. Don't do that--- it can be just as tough to install that kind of garbage on Windows, as well.
The *one* beef you can have with Linux is that there simply aren't enough native apps avaliable for it. This is only true is some arenas, and is getting better all the time. Plus, you can get select Windows applications to work perfectly by using a solution like Codeweavers Crossover office (much, much easier than Wine, i.e. point and click easy).
Maybe 10 years ago. Now, AOL requires a credit card on signup, even for the free service.
You must register a credit card, and have a charge authorization pre-approved before they'll let you dial in. Period.
Not that I've *ever* signed up with AOL, nor would I ever consider it. I had told people in my office (who are cancelling AOL on my recommendation) to not pay the bill, but they told me that they had already given their credit card info.
I attempted to sign up for a trial account with false info, and sure enough, it demanded a credit card.
I agree with you, and keep in mind, that DSL companies aren't the only one you can purchase internet access through.
Vonage works just fine over cable, or fiber, or whatever. (BPL? Fixed Wireless? EV-DO?)
If the phone companies go nuts, block this stuff, and raise prices, expect them to go out of business.
Plus, the baby bells will get challenges from the FCC. Michael Powell uses Vonage as his posterchild for competition in the telecom industry. I wouldn't be surprised if some of this 600 mil goes towards lobbying.
That's assuming they develop *no more customers*, which this IPO is most likely predicated on them not doing.
The idea behind an IPO is to fuel explosive growth; an IPO is most definitely *not* a sale of company assets, and current income is only roughly related to how much money you want to raise.
Far more important is business plan; and these IPO rumors are indicative of Vonage planning to build out extensively, or to acquire customers, or both.
$750 a customer? You're thinking wrong.
800,000 customers. Target over 7 years? 9 million customers. 10 fold increase.
Raise 600 million, use that to acquire customers? A $75 per customer acquistion cost is not unreasonable, and 9 million VoIP users is what, ~4% of the telephony market?
You say cell phones are getting cheaper, and there are free VoIP services avaliable, but they just aren't the same, or as convenient. It's pretty easy to sell people on something that requires no configuration and acts exactly like a normal phone company telephone.
And the baby bells are a nice, fat target.
It's not an unreasonable goal, nor an unreasonable amount of money to raise. And given that their average plan goes for $20 a month, a $75 per customer acquisition cost will cover itself in 4 months.
That's *great* business. This, of course, depends on their business plan, on whether or not providers cut them out of the market (though the FCC loves Vonage) and whether or not these 911 lawsuits put them out of business (looks like this threat is passing).
I say this as someone who has switched his home phones and some business phones to vonage, 9 lines in total.
Unlikely. In the intermediate to long-term future, all that thin copper will be replaced with cable or fiber. Well, thats the plan, anyways; who knows how it will turn out.
As VoIP services like Vonage become more common, we'll see traditional phone networks be phased out; either thin copper phone -> VoIP over cable, or thin copper phone -> VoIP over thin copper DSL as a transition to fiber.
Telegrams require an order of magnitude less wiring. While phone lines probably won't be ripped out for awhile, you'll have many new developments that contain no phone lines, or only phone lines in the last block; everything else will be fiber.
In 50 years, you maybe able to make a novelty phone call, i.e. still dial a phone number. Odds are, it'll spend most of its time travelling over VoIP.
Hell, many provider's backbones work over VoIP now. Deployment has no where to go but up.
AIM, MSN, Yahoo, etc. . . IM protocols are designed for for official clients only, and are proprietary. They can, and do, randomly change the protocol, and break compatibility with older versions.
Jabber, by design, is an open standard. No reverse engineering required. Feel free to write a client, or a server, or a piece of middleware.
Why should google invent a new one when a perfectly good one exists? They didn't redesign HTML, or SMTP? They just provided a better 'solution.
Google didn't make the first search engine. They made the first *good* search engine.
Google didn't make the first webmail client. They made the first *amazing* webmail client.
Google didn't design the first IM service. It'll remain to be see whether or not theirs will rock, but basing it on jabber is a really, really good first step.
Supporting voice chat (especially if its open, as well, i.e. googletalkichatgaim-vv). That'll make the makers of Skype fairly sad, I think;-)
For desktop use, peak performance/watt is not terribly important. Everything, including cooling systems, can scale up to handle peak output.
I'd argue that average performance/watt is more important.
In order to figure this, you'd need to work out a good estimate of an average desktops load over an average day. Yes, I know this would be a terribly difficult statistic to generate.
Servers are different. Servers can be expected to run at high levels of load for a prolonged periods of time.
But I have no problem with the way my Athlon 64 revs up when I'm playing a game, and no problem with the way my zalman cooler goes from silent (i.e. not moving at all) to a slight amount of noise. If Athlon 64s continue to outperform Intel processors at similar price ranges, I'll be happy to deal with a significantly higher peak power usage as well as a wider range of power usage. Idle, my processor puts out the same amount of heat as a similarly performing Pentium-M chip.
Most of the time, when I'm working on my system, or playing a movie, or my system is idling, its silent. That's good enough for me.
I run *nothing* but linux, and Mac OS X on my laptop. I've got 3 desktops and a server at home that run linux, and my business has been switched to all linux except for one guy that refuses to use linux. He does his own maintenance, as well, and I simply filter his mac address when/if he starts spewing out spam.
Yes, KDE 3.4.2 is beautiful. I'm with you.
I don't dual boot. I won't *ever* use MS products.
But desktop linux is *still* not gaining much marketshare. This is through no fault of its own. Technically, linux is there.
MS's Windows monopoly, however, is extremely difficult to break. When I say stillborn, I mean stuck under the 2% marketshare. Not that it really matters that much to me, as I will *not* use MS software under any circumstances. But linux has a long, long, long way to go before it can crack the desktop market. I'm not really sure how its going to get there; most likely, corporate deployments. But I don't think anyone sees desktop linux conquering the market in the forseeable future.
#1, for sure. As it is, the 'Get the Facts' campaign looks like pure FUD. I've *never* seen *anyone* that took it seriously.
#2. Unlikely. Microsoft doesn't believe it has flaws. To MS, a problem is something that is either a) already fixed by in the next version, b) user/admin error, or c) 'a feature'. Most likely, a security feature:). MS is *very* arrogant when it comes to software design. There are countless tales of MS engineers visibly getting angry when others imply their software is insecure, or uses an inferior design. NIH syndrome is pervasive throughout MS; MS tends to reinvent things because they sincerely believe their version is *always* better.
Honestly, in terms of Desktop linux, MS can do this now. Desktop linux *is* currently stillborne. I don't think MS fears it right now. MS playing nice with the OSS 'people' puts the final nail in the coffin of anti-trust suits versus Microsoft.
And, honestly, do you think that if MS started providing IE, Office, etc, for linux, that would cause people to switch to linux? I doubt it; it just allows them to control the app-space of another OS. MS Office & IE are standard Mac apps. Windows media player, MSN, etc. . . are near-standard. And even *then*, the majority will *still* use windows because they worry about office/internet 'compatibility'.
Don't believe me? Find any number of the nerds out there that are somewhat informed about linux. Hell, ask the Slashdot crowd. Heavens knows the majority of/.'ers are running windows.
Ever notice the huge, huge discussions that occur when MS talks about locking out Windows pirates? Ever notice the vast amounts of bitching? MS could release their own version of linux, and Windows would *still* be the dominant operating system.
Not that it would ever happen, but MS could end of life Windows in favor of an MS linux, and Windows would *still* be the dominant operating system. The Windows monopoly is ingrained in today's computer users. Look how long it took people to migrate from 98 to 2000/XP. It's still happening. Same with MS's office suites. There are a panoply of versions out there, and imagine if MS tried to get people to switch to a radically different version. It simply wouldn't happen. MS has nothing to fear regarding its monopoly. Their only problem is they've gotten *too* strong. Their only really competitor is themselves.
Playing nice with linux really is the way out of any perceived problems they have now. MS has a terrible business reputation; in fact, I'd argue thats really the only thing that have going against them. Cut out the constant notices of spyware/viruses, silence the crazy Unix/Linux/FreeBSD people, and you've killed any chance of people revolting away from the MS kit, and you've ruined any anti-trust case they could ever be written in the future.
The *only* time you'll ever see an ascendant Desktop linux is if MS's reputation continues to worsen. Primarily, this'll depend on security failures. An extremely restrictive DRM scheme (remember DivX, at Circuit City), or worms/viruses which cause extremely serious damage (like, say, corrupting all documents on a system, or damaging a system through BIOS tricks), and those people that were burned would switch. That's probably why they keep issuing security patches to pirates. Other than that, Linux will take desktop marketshare from MS, but at an extremely slow pace.
I say this as someone who will *not* use MS software, for anything. I run Linux/Mac OS X. I will not dual boot, and I will not consider future MS product offerings. Why?
Server Linux is completely different. Server Linux is kicking ass and taking names. This is probably why we see such dramatic PR fluctuations from Microsoft.
It's a giant company, and at least two political camps are visibile there: 1. 'Look at Desktop Linux, we crush them there. We build superior products, obviously. Therefore, lets be nice as we engineer a superior server product. In fact, we should codevelop some of our future technologies, because as long as we develop closed-source implementations we can take advantage of any elegant design principles that OSS creates while building a superior, slightly incompatible version in house'. 2. 'Linux is the biggest threat to us, ever. Look at server linux. Stop it at all costs, spare no FUD. Software exists in an ecology; developing marketshare in servers is a stepping stone to desktops; that's what we did with NT. Look at the development of OpenOffice.org-- OSS has the roots for a viable competitor; use anything to crush it in the bud, now. Oh, and while we're at it, lets Patent everything under the sun. That's our nuclear option.'
Yes, it is possible to go through life without TV. I do, everyday, and I'm not some kind of weird recluse or anything. I have friends, and a girlfriend *gasp* (yes, she thinks slashdot is super-nerdy), and I spend a lot of time playing video games. That's my replacement for crap TV.
Movies? I go and see them at the theater. Yes, I'd like to watch more at home. But I can't buy DVDs that I can do what I like with, so I don't buy them, period.
2. Pirate it. This is where the/giggle comes in. Lets assume you absolutely have to have your movies/TV shows. Lets assume you absolutely have to have it in HD.
You can either a) use a spatzbox (linked elsewhere in this conversation) to convert the HDCP content to HD component analog or digital DVI, or b) grab the HD-DVD that was burned unprotected using said spatzbox in some copyright-loving area like, say, Hong Kong.
The up market leather goods brands (Gucci and above) have been trying to stop pirate manufacturing of their products. In Iran, you can get any software you could possibly want for $1 a disk.
Do you *really* think that the MPAA will be able to stop this? What magic powers do they have the all the other companies don't have? It doesn't matter if the Blue-Ray or HD-DVD content protection can be broken. All you need is a HD-DVD/Blue-Ray player, and a spatzbox, in order to produce 1 digital master, HD, no content protection.
Its already avaliable!
Then it'll go through the usual distribution channels. Wholesale pirates->streets of hong kong->american tourists->usenet/limewire and CO.
And it's only going to get better and better as internet connections get faster. Think Windows Vista is going to DRM its way out of that? Nonsense-> You're forgetting that these will be unencrypted streams.
The only thing that this nonsense does is economically punish those who do the valid thing and actually purchase the disks.
For those like me, who will abstain, it does nothing. For those like many others, who will pirate, it does nothing.
And I see *nothing* wrong with pirating. Copyright is an economic right (not a system of ethics) designed to promote the arts and sciences. Once someone abuses Copyright (like, say, by eliminating fair use/controlling playback through the DMCA), they are actively stopping the promotion of the arts and sciences. As I see it, the *only* reason to respect copyright is the promotion of the arts and sciences, and once they stop doing that, they forfeit their government-sponsored monopoly.
That's all it is, you know. Copyright was not handed down by God to Moses as a command. The Buddha did not tell us about Copyright, and evolution did not cause Copyright to evolve as inherented human behavior. Copyright is a government-sponsored monopoly, established for the *sole* purpose of promoting/protecting artistic and scientific economic activies.
And contrary to what you learned in grade school civics, what the government tells you is not always the definition of 'good and right'. Don't call me a deviant--> If I was a weird, social outcast, and the only one who thought like this, then 50 million Americans (sayeth the RIAA) would not be participating in illegal P2P activities. While those Americans may not directly communicate their beliefs they way I am able to explain my own, it is most likely because they simply haven't though about it at any length, and if they had, would agree with me.
But, I don't bother to pirate. Instead of paying attention to one-way content, I prefer to interact with two-way content, and I see enough value in that interaction that I purchase it. I vote with my dollar--> I buy things (read *games*) that I think are good. And between Guildwars, Half-Life 2, Eve Online, and World of Warcraft, I have my hands full for the indefinite future.
Eh? My PHB plays Windows XP Spider Solitare, on linux, all the time.
Wine, baby, Wine....
I do get the occasional complaint that the flicker from the 'H for Hint' command doesn't always show up, but thats very minor;-)
Tell the truth. Say you have ~60% application compatibility, with 1/10 the cost, and no more anti-virus/spyware subscription.
You'd be surprised: The key to convincing non-techies to switch from Windows to Linux, especially non-computer literate people, is explaining things simply.
Supposed 'power-users?'. The ones that believe they have mastered the computer because they bought Norton, know how to install device drivers, and have learned what a couple main windows utilities do?
Those people are hard to get to switch! But my two main demographics are easy-- non-literate people, and true 'nerds' (such as myself).
And since I've managed to get my girlfriend to go from non-literate person to mostly nerdish, she's next on the list. . . .
I don't understand how it can be unlicensed for certain uses and not other uses.
Do you mean it is not unlicensed for GSM because of power requirements?
Or does GSM occupy more frequency space than is unlicensed in the 900 Mhz band?
As long as you comply with all FCC rules, you should be able to do GSM in the 900 Mhz band.
Not that it would necessairly be useful once you did, but still, one could do it, perhaps in your own home or something. I don't know much about any of this, however, so you're probably right.
Where's the nearest place you can get DSL/Cable? Is it within 40-60 miles?
Can you get business class DSL/Cable at that localtion? Like at least 6 Mbps down, 768 Kbps up?
How many neighbors do you have?
How flat is the land?
1. Get DSL installed within 40-50 miles. 2. Setup a series of LOS wireless repeaters, using off the shelf hardware, like linksys WRT54Gs in waterproof, powered boxes. 3. Resell (legally!) DSL service to your neighbors. With either a business class connection, or Speakeasy's connection share, this is permitted. 4. Profit (or at least enjoy your internet)
The biggest issue with wireless range is LOS, not distance. With cheap, weather proof cantennas (go to wirelessgarden.com), you can get 20 or so mile range.
The initial investment is higher, but the long term operation cost is extremely low, and the investment really isn't that high if you can find decent places to put up some towers for your equipment (perhaps neighbors? The biggest concern is electricity)
Browsing Ebay, I see a 110' AM radio tower for $50. This stuff you can find used, no problem, I think.
A couple (maybe 3-4) towers, electricity, and enough neighbors, and you've got the makings of your own ISP. Hell, if you've got the credit for it, plan it all out in advance, write a business plan, go to your local bank, and borrow the 5-10k you need to do the whole thing right.
1. Use an Nvidia Card 2. Add Option "GLXwithComposite" "Enable" to your xorg.conf 3. Restart X server 4. Enjoy Composite and OpenGL on the same display.
Slashdot Mirror
if i =100
delete partition table
end
Anonymous coward.
security flaws: big deal
desktop applications, ease of use, driver support, printer support, etc: only if you are talking about Windows desktop apps, Windows driver support, Windows printer support, etc. . . .
You wouldn't buy a Sun workstation and expect all your windows garbage to work on it, would you?
You wouldn't buy an xbox and expect PS2 games to work on it, would you?
If I'm building a system from scratch, I can build a system with working drivers/printers on either Windows or Linux.
Don't expect Linux to work perfectly on *any* Windows hardware; it doesn't. You have to plan your purchases out before hand. You're like the people who claim Linux is hard to install; well, guess what, so is Windows-- but most people don't have to install it because its preinstalled. Buy linux preinstalled, and guess what, its just as easy as Windows! In terms of actual difficulty, I find SuSE more convenient than XP to install. Fewer reboots, fewer driver downloads needed.
Installing software in linux is much easier than windows. Why? Because it all comes preinstalled as part of the OS. Could you build a recovery disk to make the operation as easy in Windows? Sure. See what I mean about comparing Apples to Oranges?
SuSE works out-of-the-box for most people. If you install stuff that comes with installers, or uses RPMs, you never have to leave the GUI. You never have to mess with maintenance. So whats the difficulty?
Yes, running Windows apps on Linux is tougher than running Windows apps on Windows. Duh.
For the most part, however, when you compare Linux apps on Linux versus Windows apps on Windows, Linux provides a much easier installation process, easier integrated updates, perfect ease of use, and lower overall costs.
Installing random alpha-state crap from source? Yes, thats tough. And stupid. Don't do that--- it can be just as tough to install that kind of garbage on Windows, as well.
The *one* beef you can have with Linux is that there simply aren't enough native apps avaliable for it. This is only true is some arenas, and is getting better all the time. Plus, you can get select Windows applications to work perfectly by using a solution like Codeweavers Crossover office (much, much easier than Wine, i.e. point and click easy).
Maybe 10 years ago. Now, AOL requires a credit card on signup, even for the free service.
You must register a credit card, and have a charge authorization pre-approved before they'll let you dial in. Period.
Not that I've *ever* signed up with AOL, nor would I ever consider it. I had told people in my office (who are cancelling AOL on my recommendation) to not pay the bill, but they told me that they had already given their credit card info.
I attempted to sign up for a trial account with false info, and sure enough, it demanded a credit card.
I agree with you, and keep in mind, that DSL companies aren't the only one you can purchase internet access through.
Vonage works just fine over cable, or fiber, or whatever. (BPL? Fixed Wireless? EV-DO?)
If the phone companies go nuts, block this stuff, and raise prices, expect them to go out of business.
Plus, the baby bells will get challenges from the FCC. Michael Powell uses Vonage as his posterchild for competition in the telecom industry. I wouldn't be surprised if some of this 600 mil goes towards lobbying.
$750 per customer.
That's assuming they develop *no more customers*, which this IPO is most likely predicated on them not doing.
The idea behind an IPO is to fuel explosive growth; an IPO is most definitely *not* a sale of company assets, and current income is only roughly related to how much money you want to raise.
Far more important is business plan; and these IPO rumors are indicative of Vonage planning to build out extensively, or to acquire customers, or both.
$750 a customer? You're thinking wrong.
800,000 customers. Target over 7 years? 9 million customers. 10 fold increase.
Raise 600 million, use that to acquire customers? A $75 per customer acquistion cost is not unreasonable, and 9 million VoIP users is what, ~4% of the telephony market?
You say cell phones are getting cheaper, and there are free VoIP services avaliable, but they just aren't the same, or as convenient. It's pretty easy to sell people on something that requires no configuration and acts exactly like a normal phone company telephone.
And the baby bells are a nice, fat target.
It's not an unreasonable goal, nor an unreasonable amount of money to raise. And given that their average plan goes for $20 a month, a $75 per customer acquisition cost will cover itself in 4 months.
That's *great* business. This, of course, depends on their business plan, on whether or not providers cut them out of the market (though the FCC loves Vonage) and whether or not these 911 lawsuits put them out of business (looks like this threat is passing).
I say this as someone who has switched his home phones and some business phones to vonage, 9 lines in total.
Unlikely. In the intermediate to long-term future, all that thin copper will be replaced with cable or fiber. Well, thats the plan, anyways; who knows how it will turn out.
As VoIP services like Vonage become more common, we'll see traditional phone networks be phased out; either thin copper phone -> VoIP over cable, or thin copper phone -> VoIP over thin copper DSL as a transition to fiber.
Telegrams require an order of magnitude less wiring. While phone lines probably won't be ripped out for awhile, you'll have many new developments that contain no phone lines, or only phone lines in the last block; everything else will be fiber.
In 50 years, you maybe able to make a novelty phone call, i.e. still dial a phone number. Odds are, it'll spend most of its time travelling over VoIP.
Hell, many provider's backbones work over VoIP now. Deployment has no where to go but up.
Jabber is, by design, a standard.
;-)
AIM, MSN, Yahoo, etc. . . IM protocols are designed for for official clients only, and are proprietary. They can, and do, randomly change the protocol, and break compatibility with older versions.
Jabber, by design, is an open standard. No reverse engineering required. Feel free to write a client, or a server, or a piece of middleware.
Why should google invent a new one when a perfectly good one exists? They didn't redesign HTML, or SMTP? They just provided a better 'solution.
Google didn't make the first search engine. They made the first *good* search engine.
Google didn't make the first webmail client. They made the first *amazing* webmail client.
Google didn't design the first IM service. It'll remain to be see whether or not theirs will rock, but basing it on jabber is a really, really good first step.
Supporting voice chat (especially if its open, as well, i.e. googletalkichatgaim-vv). That'll make the makers of Skype fairly sad, I think
Was the friend running iChat, GoogleTalk, or something else?
iChat to iChat is nice, but not amazing.
iChat to GoogleTalk would be incredible, but I don't seen any reference to video on their site.
For desktop use, peak performance/watt is not terribly important. Everything, including cooling systems, can scale up to handle peak output.
I'd argue that average performance/watt is more important.
In order to figure this, you'd need to work out a good estimate of an average desktops load over an average day. Yes, I know this would be a terribly difficult statistic to generate.
Servers are different. Servers can be expected to run at high levels of load for a prolonged periods of time.
But I have no problem with the way my Athlon 64 revs up when I'm playing a game, and no problem with the way my zalman cooler goes from silent (i.e. not moving at all) to a slight amount of noise. If Athlon 64s continue to outperform Intel processors at similar price ranges, I'll be happy to deal with a significantly higher peak power usage as well as a wider range of power usage. Idle, my processor puts out the same amount of heat as a similarly performing Pentium-M chip.
Most of the time, when I'm working on my system, or playing a movie, or my system is idling, its silent. That's good enough for me.
Isn't it Dell's notebook default background, too?
I remember thinking my Inspiron 8200 looked like that.
Finish reading my post :)
I run *nothing* but linux, and Mac OS X on my laptop. I've got 3 desktops and a server at home that run linux, and my business has been switched to all linux except for one guy that refuses to use linux. He does his own maintenance, as well, and I simply filter his mac address when/if he starts spewing out spam.
Yes, KDE 3.4.2 is beautiful. I'm with you.
I don't dual boot. I won't *ever* use MS products.
But desktop linux is *still* not gaining much marketshare. This is through no fault of its own. Technically, linux is there.
MS's Windows monopoly, however, is extremely difficult to break. When I say stillborn, I mean stuck under the 2% marketshare. Not that it really matters that much to me, as I will *not* use MS software under any circumstances. But linux has a long, long, long way to go before it can crack the desktop market. I'm not really sure how its going to get there; most likely, corporate deployments. But I don't think anyone sees desktop linux conquering the market in the forseeable future.
#1, for sure. As it is, the 'Get the Facts' campaign looks like pure FUD. I've *never* seen *anyone* that took it seriously.
:). MS is *very* arrogant when it comes to software design. There are countless tales of MS engineers visibly getting angry when others imply their software is insecure, or uses an inferior design. NIH syndrome is pervasive throughout MS; MS tends to reinvent things because they sincerely believe their version is *always* better.
#2. Unlikely. Microsoft doesn't believe it has flaws. To MS, a problem is something that is either a) already fixed by in the next version, b) user/admin error, or c) 'a feature'. Most likely, a security feature
Honestly, in terms of Desktop linux, MS can do this now. Desktop linux *is* currently stillborne. I don't think MS fears it right now. MS playing nice with the OSS 'people' puts the final nail in the coffin of anti-trust suits versus Microsoft.
/.'ers are running windows.
And, honestly, do you think that if MS started providing IE, Office, etc, for linux, that would cause people to switch to linux? I doubt it; it just allows them to control the app-space of another OS. MS Office & IE are standard Mac apps. Windows media player, MSN, etc. . . are near-standard. And even *then*, the majority will *still* use windows because they worry about office/internet 'compatibility'.
Don't believe me? Find any number of the nerds out there that are somewhat informed about linux. Hell, ask the Slashdot crowd. Heavens knows the majority of
Ever notice the huge, huge discussions that occur when MS talks about locking out Windows pirates? Ever notice the vast amounts of bitching? MS could release their own version of linux, and Windows would *still* be the dominant operating system.
Not that it would ever happen, but MS could end of life Windows in favor of an MS linux, and Windows would *still* be the dominant operating system. The Windows monopoly is ingrained in today's computer users. Look how long it took people to migrate from 98 to 2000/XP. It's still happening. Same with MS's office suites. There are a panoply of versions out there, and imagine if MS tried to get people to switch to a radically different version. It simply wouldn't happen. MS has nothing to fear regarding its monopoly. Their only problem is they've gotten *too* strong. Their only really competitor is themselves.
Playing nice with linux really is the way out of any perceived problems they have now. MS has a terrible business reputation; in fact, I'd argue thats really the only thing that have going against them. Cut out the constant notices of spyware/viruses, silence the crazy Unix/Linux/FreeBSD people, and you've killed any chance of people revolting away from the MS kit, and you've ruined any anti-trust case they could ever be written in the future.
The *only* time you'll ever see an ascendant Desktop linux is if MS's reputation continues to worsen. Primarily, this'll depend on security failures. An extremely restrictive DRM scheme (remember DivX, at Circuit City), or worms/viruses which cause extremely serious damage (like, say, corrupting all documents on a system, or damaging a system through BIOS tricks), and those people that were burned would switch. That's probably why they keep issuing security patches to pirates. Other than that, Linux will take desktop marketshare from MS, but at an extremely slow pace.
I say this as someone who will *not* use MS software, for anything. I run Linux/Mac OS X. I will not dual boot, and I will not consider future MS product offerings. Why?
Server Linux is completely different. Server Linux is kicking ass and taking names. This is probably why we see such dramatic PR fluctuations from Microsoft.
It's a giant company, and at least two political camps are visibile there:
1. 'Look at Desktop Linux, we crush them there. We build superior products, obviously. Therefore, lets be nice as we engineer a superior server product. In fact, we should codevelop some of our future technologies, because as long as we develop closed-source implementations we can take advantage of any elegant design principles that OSS creates while building a superior, slightly incompatible version in house'.
2. 'Linux is the biggest threat to us, ever. Look at server linux. Stop it at all costs, spare no FUD. Software exists in an ecology; developing marketshare in servers is a stepping stone to desktops; that's what we did with NT. Look at the development of OpenOffice.org-- OSS has the roots for a viable competitor; use anything to crush it in the bud, now. Oh, and while we're at it, lets Patent everything under the sun. That's our nuclear option.'
He didn't stop you, Microsoft's Unsolicited Amazing E-mail Advice stopped you.
The bill's in the (e)-mail. We expect payment promptly.
1. Don't buy it. It's all crap anyways.
/giggle comes in. Lets assume you absolutely have to have your movies/TV shows. Lets assume you absolutely have to have it in HD.
Yes, it is possible to go through life without TV. I do, everyday, and I'm not some kind of weird recluse or anything. I have friends, and a girlfriend *gasp* (yes, she thinks slashdot is super-nerdy), and I spend a lot of time playing video games. That's my replacement for crap TV.
Movies? I go and see them at the theater. Yes, I'd like to watch more at home. But I can't buy DVDs that I can do what I like with, so I don't buy them, period.
2. Pirate it. This is where the
You can either a) use a spatzbox (linked elsewhere in this conversation) to convert the HDCP content to HD component analog or digital DVI, or b) grab the HD-DVD that was burned unprotected using said spatzbox in some copyright-loving area like, say, Hong Kong.
The up market leather goods brands (Gucci and above) have been trying to stop pirate manufacturing of their products. In Iran, you can get any software you could possibly want for $1 a disk.
Do you *really* think that the MPAA will be able to stop this? What magic powers do they have the all the other companies don't have? It doesn't matter if the Blue-Ray or HD-DVD content protection can be broken. All you need is a HD-DVD/Blue-Ray player, and a spatzbox, in order to produce 1 digital master, HD, no content protection.
Its already avaliable!
Then it'll go through the usual distribution channels. Wholesale pirates->streets of hong kong->american tourists->usenet/limewire and CO.
And it's only going to get better and better as internet connections get faster. Think Windows Vista is going to DRM its way out of that? Nonsense-> You're forgetting that these will be unencrypted streams.
The only thing that this nonsense does is economically punish those who do the valid thing and actually purchase the disks.
For those like me, who will abstain, it does nothing.
For those like many others, who will pirate, it does nothing.
And I see *nothing* wrong with pirating. Copyright is an economic right (not a system of ethics) designed to promote the arts and sciences. Once someone abuses Copyright (like, say, by eliminating fair use/controlling playback through the DMCA), they are actively stopping the promotion of the arts and sciences. As I see it, the *only* reason to respect copyright is the promotion of the arts and sciences, and once they stop doing that, they forfeit their government-sponsored monopoly.
That's all it is, you know. Copyright was not handed down by God to Moses as a command. The Buddha did not tell us about Copyright, and evolution did not cause Copyright to evolve as inherented human behavior. Copyright is a government-sponsored monopoly, established for the *sole* purpose of promoting/protecting artistic and scientific economic activies.
And contrary to what you learned in grade school civics, what the government tells you is not always the definition of 'good and right'. Don't call me a deviant--> If I was a weird, social outcast, and the only one who thought like this, then 50 million Americans (sayeth the RIAA) would not be participating in illegal P2P activities. While those Americans may not directly communicate their beliefs they way I am able to explain my own, it is most likely because they simply haven't though about it at any length, and if they had, would agree with me.
But, I don't bother to pirate. Instead of paying attention to one-way content, I prefer to interact with two-way content, and I see enough value in that interaction that I purchase it. I vote with my dollar--> I buy things (read *games*) that I think are good. And between Guildwars, Half-Life 2, Eve Online, and World of Warcraft, I have my hands full for the indefinite future.
Eh? My PHB plays Windows XP Spider Solitare, on linux, all the time.
;-)
Wine, baby, Wine....
I do get the occasional complaint that the flicker from the 'H for Hint' command doesn't always show up, but thats very minor
Tell the truth. Say you have ~60% application compatibility, with 1/10 the cost, and no more anti-virus/spyware subscription.
You'd be surprised: The key to convincing non-techies to switch from Windows to Linux, especially non-computer literate people, is explaining things simply.
Supposed 'power-users?'. The ones that believe they have mastered the computer because they bought Norton, know how to install device drivers, and have learned what a couple main windows utilities do?
Those people are hard to get to switch! But my two main demographics are easy-- non-literate people, and true 'nerds' (such as myself).
And since I've managed to get my girlfriend to go from non-literate person to mostly nerdish, she's next on the list. . . .
I live in the linux world, and I've got guild wars running on my second monitor.
Cedega (transgaming's wine) rocks. I love it.
And I'm using a Geforce FX 5900, which runs all my games at 1280x1024, 40-50 FPS. You can get one for ~$130 at pricewatch or techbargains.
I've got an xbox and Ps2, but I just don't come back to those games the same way I come back to PC games.
*shrug*. I've tried to make the move. I've got a mac mini, a powerbook, and 2 consoles. I still like my x86 linux box the best.
Are you joking, or did you not RTFA?
Winemaker != One who makes WINE
Winemaker as in one who grows grapes, crushes them, and ferments them into a tasty alcholic beverage.
So, less biased than you think. Drunk, perhaps, but less biased.
I don't understand how it can be unlicensed for certain uses and not other uses.
Do you mean it is not unlicensed for GSM because of power requirements?
Or does GSM occupy more frequency space than is unlicensed in the 900 Mhz band?
As long as you comply with all FCC rules, you should be able to do GSM in the 900 Mhz band.
Not that it would necessairly be useful once you did, but still, one could do it, perhaps in your own home or something. I don't know much about any of this, however, so you're probably right.
900 is unlicensed, isn't it?
850 is licensed, but as long as you have a quad-band phone.....
No, he's right. If you are building a few thousand, this should scale really, really well.
You could do it with off-the-shell pc components and FGPA radio components.
Maybe not $200. Maybe around $1000.
But only if you are making a lot of them, and you integrate as much of the hardware as possible.
Or, more specifically, the PS2's marketing in the period between the release of the dreamcast and the PS2.
Don't buy AMD's chips! Our next generation will be *so* much better than theirs! Ignore the last generation!
Look at these amazing specs!
Buyer Beware. I'll believe it when I see it; till then, it doesn't exist.
Delays and poor execution used to be AMD's realm, exclusively. Intel has had quite a few flops, lately.
Where's the nearest place you can get DSL/Cable? Is it within 40-60 miles?
Can you get business class DSL/Cable at that localtion? Like at least 6 Mbps down, 768 Kbps up?
How many neighbors do you have?
How flat is the land?
1. Get DSL installed within 40-50 miles.
2. Setup a series of LOS wireless repeaters, using off the shelf hardware, like linksys WRT54Gs in waterproof, powered boxes.
3. Resell (legally!) DSL service to your neighbors. With either a business class connection, or Speakeasy's connection share, this is permitted.
4. Profit (or at least enjoy your internet)
The biggest issue with wireless range is LOS, not distance. With cheap, weather proof cantennas (go to wirelessgarden.com), you can get 20 or so mile range.
The initial investment is higher, but the long term operation cost is extremely low, and the investment really isn't that high if you can find decent places to put up some towers for your equipment (perhaps neighbors? The biggest concern is electricity)
Browsing Ebay, I see a 110' AM radio tower for $50. This stuff you can find used, no problem, I think.
A couple (maybe 3-4) towers, electricity, and enough neighbors, and you've got the makings of your own ISP. Hell, if you've got the credit for it, plan it all out in advance, write a business plan, go to your local bank, and borrow the 5-10k you need to do the whole thing right.
1. Use an Nvidia Card
2. Add Option "GLXwithComposite" "Enable" to your xorg.conf
3. Restart X server
4. Enjoy Composite and OpenGL on the same display.
There is a Sushi restaurant in Chicago called Heat where you can select your meal from a fish tank.
Pick the fish you want, and 30 seconds later the chef will tear it apart in front of you, and serve you.