Something about Internet connections and USB storage devices, as far as I know. Also, from what I've read on the Internet, these stories of people still getting infected with Conficker invariably involve unpatched Windows computers.
Sorry, can you please remind me how this relates to the user a few posts up who isn't computer-retarded?
Really the question I have is why would anybody NOT buy a mac?
Because the rest of us aren't as rich as you, Mr. Gates. Some of us simply cannot afford the extremely overpriced system. Software that can't run anywhere else, and hardware that can't run anything else (well, until recently, anyway...) - to me, it doesn't make sense in the first place. One of the common complaints is that there is so little software development for Apple platforms. Therefore, Bill, I will continue to pay your Microsoft Tax(tm) and install Linux-based operating systems. They're easier to develop for, anyway, since it's all open-source and community-driven and everyone can see everything and stuff.
Disclaimer: We in Pittsburgh are only rapists and murderers in the sense of how we play our football games. During football games, our team rapes and murders the other team, but only in the figurative sense. We do not condone literal rape or murder, and both are criminal actions in our city.
Then either your operating system or your service pack installation application is broken. And this is probably not Microsoft's fault; SP3 has been possible to install for the vast, vast majority of Windows XP SP2 users. One anecdote not verified by a third party does not nullify the rest of the Windows XP userbase finding no legitimate reason not to use SP3.
Of course, the other option for this problem is simply that your hard disk is too full. Try cleaning it up, if it's just about filled to capacity.
The year of the Linux Desktop has come and gone without much notice.. it was 2008.
Honestly, I would argue that 2008 set the stage for a possible YotLD. If the devs don't screw it up, 2009 could probably see a massive spike in sales of computers with Linux pre-installed. There's that whole "depression" thing that's got people clinging to their wallets for dear life, and there's a ton of FOSS to attach to Linux-based OS's that makes the Linux experience quite similar to MS Windows, when you get just a glimpse of it. There are web browsers, office suites, media players, and email clients for Linux-based systems. The GUIs are quite easy to get used to. There isn't much standing between Linux and a decent-sized market share except for consumer ignorance.
Now that we have nice, user-friendly operating systems like Ubuntu and its family, along with some manufacturers like HP making custom UIs/distros, we need to make people aware of Linux and how much of the "geeks-only command line with indecipherable letters" stereotype it's managed to shed.
This is, of course, assuming that realizing the "Year of the Linux Desktop" means that there is a goal of acquiring a very significant market share, such that it appears to or does rival or surpass Microsoft on the desktop market.
Microsoft has stumbled with Vista, leaving an opening.
Do you mean that thing that Microsoft did where they didn't suck the life out of Windows XP like they do money from consumers' wallets? I don't know if they stumbled with Vista or if they just hit a ceiling with XP.
Karpinski emphasized that correlation does not equal causation
I stopped reading the summary here and checked the tags. Sure enough, it's tagged correlationisnotcausation. Way to be predictable, Slashdot. >_>
IMO, they should have done a more broad study - do these facebook users who get lower grades also do other stuff on the web? These non-facebook-users who get 10 more hours of study done than the users: do they use the Internet for anything other than email, Google, and research?
The people who did the study even acknowledged that there's a ton of third variables that need to be checked. As it stands, this looks like just one big slam against facebook.
I have a facebook account, but I am WAY more addicted to/. and GameFAQs than I am to writing the most random crap for blurbs to use to "update my status". My lack of study isn't facebook. It's/. and gfaqs.
This story isn't even news until there's something significant worth reporting, instead of just trying to make one company look bad.
P.S.: "many third variables" is the worst way they could possibly have phrased that, I think. There's no fourth or fifth or nine-thousandth variable? They're all #3? Whatever, I think I got the point; I guess that's all that matters.
"Works" means it successfully performs the task assigned to it.
Now there's a thought. By that standard for "works", a lot of business probably could replace their M$ stuff with Linux-based OS's and FOSS. Gets the job done, and lets the company decide not to spend money on Micro$oftware.
Also, more stability and no virus threats would be a great bonus.
Somehow, the logical choice almost seems actively avoided.... Eh, I'm not really qualified to say what may or may not be the right path. This whole post is speculation.
Define "works". Every OS out there, including WinXP, gets patches for one reason or another. If it 100% worked and was bug-free and everything, there would be no patches. Heck, no other operating systems would be released.
What is your standard for a "working" OS?
Technically, from some point of view, no OS "works", and that is why they are screwed with.
This is actually becoming a reality - Netbooks are sometimes put on display this way over here in Germany.
*sigh* Another reason that there's better places to live than the US....
That's an interesting use of the phrase... maybe my English is just a little rusty;)
Or my English is just a little weird. It would be very off-topic to go into detail as to why, but I have a rather unique way of speaking English. I tend to be more precise than others, and choose my words carefully, even if a phrase might usually be interpreted in a different way. I tend to choose words for literal meaning, though my figurative language should be easy to spot when it appears.
I used "All other things equal" as an assumption of an ideal situation. I'm pretty sure that's the usual usage of the phrase, but I honestly have no idea if it usually implies a realistic or ideal situation.
Now that is a _good_ point, and one that I can wholeheartedly agree with. And like I said, this has already been happening with netbooks, at least some of the time.
For my Toshiba NB100 I had a choice between an Ubuntu edition for 280 Euros and an XP version for 350+... the choice wasn't exactly a difficult one to make:)
See, now that's a savings of 70+ euros. That's the money that my original post said could go into either better parts or some kind of party or something. Heck, that's another tank or two of fuel for the car, depending on current oil prices. And you're talking Euros; I imagine that with the current exchange rates, that savings would look a lot higher in USD.
I'd like to see this scenario happen more often, but American companies generally tend to be more evil than companies elsewhere. On this side of the Atlantic, I feel like it's very difficult to find companies that actually care about individual customers enough not to deceive them. Technically, it's lying by omission (in this example, omission of the fact that a particular OS is free of charge, and so the product does not have to be priced as high). IANAL, but there could probably be a lawsuit in there somewhere.
I am glad that in the end, we seem to be on the same side: willful exploitation of consumer ignorance is evil.
Do you really think that people who buy computers at these places actually *know* that they're paying for the software? Nope, they're thinking that OS's are free anyway when they buy a new PC... Now where's your incentive for a free Open Source operating system?
Say I open a computer store, and manufacture my own systems from parts that I order. I offer hardware configurations with either Windows or Linux-based operating systems on them - either OS is available for a given set of hardware. Say I price each of my machines 10% more than the exact cost of the hardware and software it takes to get it working. The Linux one ends up being significantly cheaper because it doesn't have to pay for a license.
Say someone walks into my computer store, with my custom systems offering both Windows and Linux versions. They are looking to buy a computer. Of my products on display, there is a computer running Windows Vista Ultimate, and a computer running some Linux distro with KDE 4.2.1, maybe slightly modified to look even more similar to Windows. They look similar, but the one with the Linux OS (whether or not the customer knows it's Linux) has a much cheaper price tag.
Which system do you suppose they will buy, if they truly don't know the difference between OS families and which ones they pay to use?
I can pretty reasonably guess that they will buy the one with the lower price tag. People like to find stuff as cheap as they can. And if manufacturers can refrain from trying to make an artificially high profit on selling computers with Linux-based operating systems pre-loaded (i.e.: don't price the computers like Windows-pre-loaded ones), I imagine that the Linux systems would be selling more.
Corporate Greed vs. Consumer Wallet. And I would imagine that if the corporations would tone it down just a little bit, they could get deeper into our wallets.
Also, one last thing to say: Reading over your post, bemymonkey, you seem to think that my post is realistic. It stopped being any sort of realistic speculation when I said, "All other things equal." Yes, I agree, people don't know that they pay for Windows when it comes on the computer. This is exploitable if companies omit this fact when they sell a computer with Linux. However, if they can refrain from exploiting customer ignorance, then they can give a Linux computer a much more attractive price tag. That was my point.
...I need to make an Obama joke here, particularly regarding the 2008 United States Presidential Election. I just wish I was quick-witted enough to actually come up with one.
while still being able to go back to windows when they need to (play games).
This is 100% of the reason my laptop is still dual-booted. I'm four months into my Linux experience, and I am simply too far into video games to completely give up Windows. I would have completely killed Windows by now if it weren't for Touhou Project. Easier to keep Windows for a few games than to configure Wine to run each of them 100% well.
Also, someone seems to have forgotten that pretty much every program cited runs on windows - whats the motivation for someone to switch? oh right, since what i have works fine, THERE ISNT ONE.
*falls for troll bait*
Well, all other things equal, Linux-based operating systems still have no monetary cost.
If I buy a computer with a Linux-based OS pre-loaded instead of Windows, I could either sink that extra $50-150 that I didn't spend on Windows into slightly better hardware, for a slightly faster computer, or I could take the saved money and buy extra groceries or something and throw a party with my friends.
inb4some troll makes a joke about a geek like me not having friends.
Slashdot, forgive me, for I have been trolled yet again! >_
Slashdot Mirror
Something about Internet connections and USB storage devices, as far as I know. Also, from what I've read on the Internet, these stories of people still getting infected with Conficker invariably involve unpatched Windows computers.
Sorry, can you please remind me how this relates to the user a few posts up who isn't computer-retarded?
Really the question I have is why would anybody NOT buy a mac?
Because the rest of us aren't as rich as you, Mr. Gates. Some of us simply cannot afford the extremely overpriced system. Software that can't run anywhere else, and hardware that can't run anything else (well, until recently, anyway...) - to me, it doesn't make sense in the first place. One of the common complaints is that there is so little software development for Apple platforms. Therefore, Bill, I will continue to pay your Microsoft Tax(tm) and install Linux-based operating systems. They're easier to develop for, anyway, since it's all open-source and community-driven and everyone can see everything and stuff.
Is there any lower life form than a spammer?
Yes. Those users who actually care that your penis and breasts are too small, and actually want to sell you enhancement products.
Also, there's that one Nigerian guy who is really offering you the money for real.
Disclaimer: We in Pittsburgh are only rapists and murderers in the sense of how we play our football games. During football games, our team rapes and murders the other team, but only in the figurative sense. We do not condone literal rape or murder, and both are criminal actions in our city.
Then either your operating system or your service pack installation application is broken. And this is probably not Microsoft's fault; SP3 has been possible to install for the vast, vast majority of Windows XP SP2 users. One anecdote not verified by a third party does not nullify the rest of the Windows XP userbase finding no legitimate reason not to use SP3.
Of course, the other option for this problem is simply that your hard disk is too full. Try cleaning it up, if it's just about filled to capacity.
Oh, thank you! I always get those two things confused. It's a server, not a surfer.
I've got it now. Thanks again! :D
[citation needed]
That's the first I've heard that MS is paying off the stores.
Care to explain how we know that MS is actually engaging in this evil business practice, instead of it just being a rumor of Microsoft Evil(tm)?
The year of the Linux Desktop has come and gone without much notice .. it was 2008.
Honestly, I would argue that 2008 set the stage for a possible YotLD. If the devs don't screw it up, 2009 could probably see a massive spike in sales of computers with Linux pre-installed. There's that whole "depression" thing that's got people clinging to their wallets for dear life, and there's a ton of FOSS to attach to Linux-based OS's that makes the Linux experience quite similar to MS Windows, when you get just a glimpse of it. There are web browsers, office suites, media players, and email clients for Linux-based systems. The GUIs are quite easy to get used to. There isn't much standing between Linux and a decent-sized market share except for consumer ignorance.
Now that we have nice, user-friendly operating systems like Ubuntu and its family, along with some manufacturers like HP making custom UIs/distros, we need to make people aware of Linux and how much of the "geeks-only command line with indecipherable letters" stereotype it's managed to shed.
This is, of course, assuming that realizing the "Year of the Linux Desktop" means that there is a goal of acquiring a very significant market share, such that it appears to or does rival or surpass Microsoft on the desktop market.
Microsoft has stumbled with Vista, leaving an opening.
Do you mean that thing that Microsoft did where they didn't suck the life out of Windows XP like they do money from consumers' wallets? I don't know if they stumbled with Vista or if they just hit a ceiling with XP.
Karpinski emphasized that correlation does not equal causation
I stopped reading the summary here and checked the tags. Sure enough, it's tagged correlationisnotcausation. Way to be predictable, Slashdot. >_>
IMO, they should have done a more broad study - do these facebook users who get lower grades also do other stuff on the web? These non-facebook-users who get 10 more hours of study done than the users: do they use the Internet for anything other than email, Google, and research?
The people who did the study even acknowledged that there's a ton of third variables that need to be checked. As it stands, this looks like just one big slam against facebook.
I have a facebook account, but I am WAY more addicted to /. and GameFAQs than I am to writing the most random crap for blurbs to use to "update my status". My lack of study isn't facebook. It's /. and gfaqs.
This story isn't even news until there's something significant worth reporting, instead of just trying to make one company look bad.
P.S.: "many third variables" is the worst way they could possibly have phrased that, I think. There's no fourth or fifth or nine-thousandth variable? They're all #3? Whatever, I think I got the point; I guess that's all that matters.
"Works" means it successfully performs the task assigned to it.
Now there's a thought. By that standard for "works", a lot of business probably could replace their M$ stuff with Linux-based OS's and FOSS. Gets the job done, and lets the company decide not to spend money on Micro$oftware.
Also, more stability and no virus threats would be a great bonus.
Somehow, the logical choice almost seems actively avoided.... Eh, I'm not really qualified to say what may or may not be the right path. This whole post is speculation.
Why screw with what works?
Define "works". Every OS out there, including WinXP, gets patches for one reason or another. If it 100% worked and was bug-free and everything, there would be no patches. Heck, no other operating systems would be released.
What is your standard for a "working" OS?
Technically, from some point of view, no OS "works", and that is why they are screwed with.
This is actually becoming a reality - Netbooks are sometimes put on display this way over here in Germany.
*sigh* Another reason that there's better places to live than the US....
That's an interesting use of the phrase... maybe my English is just a little rusty ;)
Or my English is just a little weird. It would be very off-topic to go into detail as to why, but I have a rather unique way of speaking English. I tend to be more precise than others, and choose my words carefully, even if a phrase might usually be interpreted in a different way. I tend to choose words for literal meaning, though my figurative language should be easy to spot when it appears.
I used "All other things equal" as an assumption of an ideal situation. I'm pretty sure that's the usual usage of the phrase, but I honestly have no idea if it usually implies a realistic or ideal situation.
Now that is a _good_ point, and one that I can wholeheartedly agree with. And like I said, this has already been happening with netbooks, at least some of the time.
For my Toshiba NB100 I had a choice between an Ubuntu edition for 280 Euros and an XP version for 350+... the choice wasn't exactly a difficult one to make :)
See, now that's a savings of 70+ euros. That's the money that my original post said could go into either better parts or some kind of party or something. Heck, that's another tank or two of fuel for the car, depending on current oil prices. And you're talking Euros; I imagine that with the current exchange rates, that savings would look a lot higher in USD.
I'd like to see this scenario happen more often, but American companies generally tend to be more evil than companies elsewhere. On this side of the Atlantic, I feel like it's very difficult to find companies that actually care about individual customers enough not to deceive them. Technically, it's lying by omission (in this example, omission of the fact that a particular OS is free of charge, and so the product does not have to be priced as high). IANAL, but there could probably be a lawsuit in there somewhere.
I am glad that in the end, we seem to be on the same side: willful exploitation of consumer ignorance is evil.
Do you really think that people who buy computers at these places actually *know* that they're paying for the software? Nope, they're thinking that OS's are free anyway when they buy a new PC... Now where's your incentive for a free Open Source operating system?
Say I open a computer store, and manufacture my own systems from parts that I order. I offer hardware configurations with either Windows or Linux-based operating systems on them - either OS is available for a given set of hardware. Say I price each of my machines 10% more than the exact cost of the hardware and software it takes to get it working. The Linux one ends up being significantly cheaper because it doesn't have to pay for a license.
Say someone walks into my computer store, with my custom systems offering both Windows and Linux versions. They are looking to buy a computer. Of my products on display, there is a computer running Windows Vista Ultimate, and a computer running some Linux distro with KDE 4.2.1, maybe slightly modified to look even more similar to Windows. They look similar, but the one with the Linux OS (whether or not the customer knows it's Linux) has a much cheaper price tag.
Which system do you suppose they will buy, if they truly don't know the difference between OS families and which ones they pay to use?
I can pretty reasonably guess that they will buy the one with the lower price tag. People like to find stuff as cheap as they can. And if manufacturers can refrain from trying to make an artificially high profit on selling computers with Linux-based operating systems pre-loaded (i.e.: don't price the computers like Windows-pre-loaded ones), I imagine that the Linux systems would be selling more.
Corporate Greed vs. Consumer Wallet. And I would imagine that if the corporations would tone it down just a little bit, they could get deeper into our wallets.
Also, one last thing to say: Reading over your post, bemymonkey, you seem to think that my post is realistic. It stopped being any sort of realistic speculation when I said, "All other things equal." Yes, I agree, people don't know that they pay for Windows when it comes on the computer. This is exploitable if companies omit this fact when they sell a computer with Linux. However, if they can refrain from exploiting customer ignorance, then they can give a Linux computer a much more attractive price tag. That was my point.
If it's of any interest, my Nintendo DS systems have held up quite well.
I don't know what causes touch screen drift, but my DS systems haven't suffered from it, as far as I can tell.
People don't like change.
...I need to make an Obama joke here, particularly regarding the 2008 United States Presidential Election. I just wish I was quick-witted enough to actually come up with one.
while still being able to go back to windows when they need to (play games).
This is 100% of the reason my laptop is still dual-booted. I'm four months into my Linux experience, and I am simply too far into video games to completely give up Windows. I would have completely killed Windows by now if it weren't for Touhou Project. Easier to keep Windows for a few games than to configure Wine to run each of them 100% well.
Rather similar to some religions.
And that, sir, is why things like Linux vs. Windows and Vi vs. Emacs are sometimes called "religious wars".
Hey! People with mod points! Mod this guy Insightful! He seems to have a really good idea here!
Also, someone seems to have forgotten that pretty much every program cited runs on windows - whats the motivation for someone to switch? oh right, since what i have works fine, THERE ISNT ONE.
*falls for troll bait*
Well, all other things equal, Linux-based operating systems still have no monetary cost.
If I buy a computer with a Linux-based OS pre-loaded instead of Windows, I could either sink that extra $50-150 that I didn't spend on Windows into slightly better hardware, for a slightly faster computer, or I could take the saved money and buy extra groceries or something and throw a party with my friends.
inb4some troll makes a joke about a geek like me not having friends.
Slashdot, forgive me, for I have been trolled yet again! >_
But is that a "Point for" of a "Point against"?
If it's "Fenner", then I win.
If it's "Ten", then you are part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor.
Offer me money.
I'm blue da ba dee da ba die...
or ... no wait. It's me AAAAAAAAAhhhhhhhhhhhh
Um...doesn't the fact that you posted with a registered account instead of AC kind of mean that it's definitely not the quoted possibility?
I'am in my parents' basement, not understanding ur joke.
Fixed that for you.
Define "superstition" and "deluding", and we'll talk. >_>