It isn't standards compliant. When standards disintegrate the consumer pays.
You aware of the price consumers paid having to support "standards" like ISA, SCSI, RS232, Centronix, and others that "had to" be complied with, at considerable cost in $$$ and size and complexity, for years beyond any sane benefit.
It promotes vendor lock in. It isn't inter-operable with other equipment. Consider digital SLRs.
For some systems, inter-operability is a hindrance. You're buying into a SYSTEM, not an individual product, and forcing compatability among systems loses an edge some are willing to pay a price for.
Once you buy into a brand and you've invested in enough equipment you're stuck with that brand unless you sell it all and start again.
Welcome to life. Sometimes you have to sell out of an old system to buy into a new one; the old just can't be salvaged at some point.
People who are replacing an older model may not realize there is new lock in until they've actually bought the product.
Buyer beware. So long as the seller isn't devious/malicious; sometimes the buyer actually needs to make an intelligent choice.
When a market leader pulls this crap, others do too and pretty soon all the MP3 players you can buy have this "feature".
And progress is made. Apple "pulled this crap" by putting USB and FireWire on their computers, leading other manufacturers to eventually (thankfully) abandon Parallel Printer Ports, Serial Ports, and other fat-cable incompatable old crud. People bitched when FireWire was added; now they're bitching because it's going away.
Lots of people don't care much what headphones they have, they just wanna listen to music while exercising, and they want a small light device to do that.
And most of them are content with what came in the box. Alternatives ARE available, in and out of the Apple store, and there will be a plethora of options once other headphone manufacturers catch up.
What about those that do care about the headphones? What about those who can't use ear buds due to hearing or ear problems?
FOR THE Nth FING TIME: THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE COMPATIBLE HEADPHONES AVAILABLE. AND MORE WILL BE AVAILABLE SOON.
And maybe the Shuffle isn't for you anyway. Try a Nano, or buy a refurbished (and much cheaper!) older Shuffle. Or some other product. And - surprise - IIRC, if you plug in regular headphones it WILL play according to the power switch settings (it IS a SHUFFLE, with the whole idea being "just let it play").
"[There will be] other headphones to choose from." Not if there's a patent on the tech and Apple wants to lock them out
You have any basis for that allegation? TFA's point is that the much-derided headphone DRM isn't after all. Have you SEEN how much iPod-compatible crap there is out there? Apple surely isn't trying to "lock out" anyone.
If they aren't locked out there's a licensing fee which drives the price up of all the headphones
Not by much, considering how cheap some of that iPod-compatible crap there is.
There's no standard way to control a device from a standard headphone jack
Well maybe we should move on already. We're in the friggin' 21st Century!
Sounds like a good argument to develop a standard rather than applaud this bad behaviour.
Standards don't tend to happen until someone starts to make one. Apple is, and now other manufacturers have to either get on board or agree on their own.
This is innovation? Seriously? Controlling a player externally via a proprietary cable? Really??? If this is considered innovation, there's a real problem.
Well, considering how much it's upsetting you (and others), there must really be something to it.
Get a grip, people. Standard dumb headphones are so last-century. One company adds minor functionality to their bottom-end product, and suddenly everyone is freaking out as if every gas station switched to hydrogen.
Just one more company on my short, but growing, list of companies I just won't deal with at all, ever, because of some galactically stupid screw-the-customer policy.
For years now, companies have been switching their names from meaningful terms to meaningless symbols - and have to for legal reasons. Ex.: "General Electric", a well-regarded company with a name having meaning, changed the name formally to "GE" and made it clear that was NOT an abbreviation for anything; "Xerox" spends considerable money ensuring people do NOT equate the otherwise meaningless name with a verb for photocopying. That a company name not have debilitating associations with other public domain (or otherwise owned) terms is important.
Likewise, the fact that "Sci Fi" is cultural terminology and not an abstract name is a legal liability. Changing the name to a similar, but legally disconnected from anything, term "Syfy" relieves them of a lot of BS regarding trademark & copyright law. Of course they spin it as something cool, but most likely their legal department made it clear "change the name or we're going to lose a LOT of money".
I find this amusing for some reason, considering I just got Amazon's Kindle for iPod Touch reader for free - and the iPod cost a whole lot less than a Kindle (in my case, free with MacBook purchase). Amazon can't say squat about the other e-book readers I also have for the iPod. Come the 10" iPod Touch, Kindle won't have much to offer in competition - especially if Amazon successfully drives away all 3rd-party sources.
Likewise, I listen to long trance/techno music mixes to work. I _must_ keep a certain part of my brain occupied lest I get too distracted/bored quickly (having a factory across the hall, plus lots of impromptu stand-up meetings happening nearby, doesn't help). Trance/techno is designed not to engage high cognition (unlike most music with attention-grabbing lyrics and melodies), but still gives something for non-programming mental activites to focus on.
Earplugs don't solve the problem of blocking distractions; if anything, they make it worse as my mind automatically starts straining to make out tiny sounds.
iPods and podcasts are wonderful: endless new material to keep the "ooh! shiny!" neurons busy while the computational theory ones get real work done.
You are willing to shell out serious bucks to play the latest and greatest games in the best settings possible - so yeah you're willing to pop $500 for a really good game, above and beyond the standard $60 release. Heck, game companies should consider that there is indeed a market for narrow-release, high-dollar games (just like any other luxury goods category).
I'm not a hardcore gamer. I'm not gonna drop even $60 on a game. Content with good games of the past, I'm happily working thru a $5 used copy of Max Payne, and have a $3 copy of Oni in queue. Not exactly free, but close enough considering the relatively high satisfaction I get from each. My PSP + Daxter were free by using a Sony credit card enough. Not the latest, not the greatest, but [shrug] they're just games.
Free is not the future of gaming. Continuation of supply-and-demand is the future of gaming. Those wanting the best/latest will pay dearly for it. Those wanting to spend little can buy used or legacy copies. Those wanting to grab eyeballs for advertising will pay accordingly to support "free" games. Those wanting to get otherwise unlikely players hooked will use the "shareware" model. Those who compulsively write such software may go OSS if they can't get hired to do so. Supply-and-demand will find a way.
You SURE only British law applies? As noted in another post, when you start hijacking 22,000 computers on the Internet, most likely SOME of those will be in the USA (or other countries where such activity IS illegal). You sure those BBC lawyers know enough about technology to be sure that the activity was limited to British computers, and this did not actually risk becoming an international incident?
Most states include a catch-all "intent" statute in their weapons laws. It's not that the law says that a knife blade under 4" is _not_ a weapon, it's that the law does _not_ say that it _is_. It is still subject to being labeled a "weapon" if circumstances indicate you _intend_ it as such.
There are approximately 20,000 gun control laws in this country. Yes, I have a copy of all of them (BATFE annually sends them to FFL licensees). Obviously not an issue for those uninterested in guns or who rarely travel, but those who (responsibly!) exercise their 2nd Amendment rights regularly and travel often (I do both, visiting about 10 states a year, often on short notice). That's twenty thousand laws one may (or may not) be subject to while travelling around this country, covering >60 jurisdictions (federal, state, territory, major cities), with the same actions garnering full legality in one jurisdiction while being a major felony mere feet away in another.
That's an _average_ of >400 laws per jurisdiction (with some overlapping) just for guns - something we allegedly have a Constitutional right to.
(The particular subject of the aforementioned laws isn't important; what's important that some 1/3rd of US citizens are actively subject to hundreds of laws which they, and any officers which they may encounter, most likely have never read - and that's just for one legal subject matter.)
Indeed! I've had two Sony ultraportable notebooks (10" screens). Being able to easily take it everywhere is practically life-changing. Allowing that a few functions were limited (i.e.: serious gaming), computing became available to me wherever a regular notebook (and certainly desktops) couldn't. Pricy, yes, but worth it.
Marching technology forward, prices have dropped and general use requirements have plateaued, leading to the sudden discovery by manufacturers that there is, in fact, huge demand for small light (and now cheap) computers that do most things well, and do them everywhere.
Triangulating this, the iPhone / iPod Touch has shown there's a market even for pocket-sized devices with largely the same capacity. Having gotten a Touch, I've nearly abandoned my aformentioned ultraportable notebook due to (of all things) its relatively large size and inconvenience. That the Touch and iPhone are also iPods is almost coincidental, thanks to the web browsing / email / apps capabilities. Expand the Touch platform into a 7"-10" screen, and bump up the computing power & battery using the extra space, and dang that would sell big. The "virtual keyboard" works fine; maybe not quite as fast as clicking switches, but pretty close - add bluetooth and the keyboard/mouse angle is instantly covered.
Being able to take 90% of your computing needs everywhere, all the time, is huge. Clamshells and keyboards are the big hinderance at this point. A thin multi-touch slate, with instant-on & aggressive connectivity, would sell big. Clicky keyboards are so 20th century...
Fine. I ran the GUI installer (yeah, "Synaptic" is a really obviously the installer, right). I installed several programs (largely selected at random from thousands of meaningless or obtuse names). Now I can't find the programs; bits and pieces are scattered around, but none can be initiated. They don't show up on the start menu, the files are buried in various "could be here, could be there, who knows" locations (no executibles visible so far), no "here's how you start it" indications were shown, and the best I get is insults from the likes of you.
No wonder people buy Macs or install Windows. Those, for all their foibles, work. Installing a program is obvious (insert CD, click obvious buttons), and running it is obvious (Start, Programs, look for highlighted new-program entries).
For my next machine, I'll buy a Mac. Plunking down a couple hundred bucks for a program that installs & runs in seconds is cheaper than spending hours dorking around with one almost-but-not-quite working alleged "free" application or OS. Life is short, and Quake 2 should run - not hide - when I install it. Of course, you'll retort with more insults - yeah, that'll help the cause.
Regarding the "what's up with 'apt'?" question, I've gotten gobs of responses ranging from a polite explanation to being called a "f-ing tool" repeatedly. None recognize that, details of explanation aside, it's not obvious - how the he11 am I supposed to know the command is "apt-get" if I don't know that the package is called "Aptitude"? and why should I know it all revolves around such a non-sequitor name? And that I've been deep in computing for 20+ years should (as someone did thankfully notice) indicate that maybe the problem isn't the users being ignorant, but the developers making things obtuse on the presumption that those entering the realm should deign to learn such details to the satisfaction of the High Priests (gee, wasn't that the great gripe against IBM years ago?) before being free to use the system.
A co-worker had a similar complaint about his new iPod Touch. He didn't know that "Safari" was the web browser - who could blame him? the name has nothing to do with the task. We don't go around asking "where's the Xerox?", and the owner of Kleenex brand actually has to legally discourage people from equating the term with nasal tissue. Knowing that "Aptitude" is the root name for the installation tools doesn't help the chicken-and-egg problem of finding out what the name of the installation tool is! why not just "install X"?
Yes, I'm a hardcore geek. That I don't know all the primary incantations for Linux doesn't diminish my geekness.
Finally: good to know there is progress being made with "Install Program" from the main drop-down menu on some (!) distros. Sounds like there is still a ways to go, both with making everything available, and with concealing details most users don't need to be confused with. Now I know what "Synaptic" is (thanks to a coincidental comment, not clarity on the menus), and get to spend hours figuring out what's relevant, obtuse, and/or missing.
If I have to spell her name in order to communicate, yes.
This is precisely why my daughter's name is "Kirsten" instead of "Kirstyn" as my wife wanted; she finally understood my insistence on the former when we wanted to buy some trinket with her name on it, the 'y' spelling was not available but the standard 'e' version was, and she almost bought it anyway until I pointed out how annoying/disrespectful that would be. Having finally chosen the standard spelling, we are nonetheless eternally dealing with people calling her "Kristen". So yes, a minor change in spelling IS, in my experience, pointlessly confusing.
"To give you an idea of what an individualist he was he spelt it hen3ry. The 3 was silent, you see." - Tom Lehrer
how do you install and update software on your mac
Either insert the CD, or go to the web page, and click "install". Click a few obvious buttons thereafter if needed. If something special like Flash or OpenGL is needed, it offers to install that too. Easy.
Linux, well, why doesn't "app-install get X" work? Oh, right, it's "app-get X install"... er... "app-get install X"... er... crap, it was some stupid mis-spelling that made no sense...
Exactly. Every time I dig into the Linux-software-install problem, the answers are always "oh, it's easy, just do X and Y and Z and P and D and Q - no problem!" Never mind that it works most of the time (what of the rest?), and there's a dozen other comparable posts that say something different and also may or may not work. I shouldn't have to elicit an obtuse answer from some unknown guy by posting a somewhat trollish message on/. - the answer should be right there on the desktop. Even the "just click on Install Programs for Ubuntu" comments come with "but when (not if) that doesn't work, use this non-intuitive command..." disclaimers.
This is why people buy Macs: it's pervasively designed for simplicity & intuition, not presumption of knowledge of cryptic commands. Would someone kindly explain why it's "apt-get" instead of "app-get"? what's with the 't'?
Yes, it is. "Rover, sit" works because "Rover" is the name of the dog, "sit" is a common English word, and the command pattern has been drilled into us since childhood. "apt-get install" - WTF is that to someone new to Linux? What's "apt" (I'd expect "app" at least)? Why the hyphenated "-get"? If I'm saying "get" the application, why do I have to include the redundant "install"? Heck, I'm a long-time hardcore geek and _still_ have to look it up every time; it's just not intuitive to someone who either is new to the concept of operating systems, nor to those who have to deal with a half-dozen or more OSes on a regular basis.
The App Store model, cheezy as it may be, works precisely because it's easy to find, easy to run, and easy to find & install applications. Linux doesn't have it yet. Having to spend hours Googling for what apps depend on what other apps, and how to install each of them in their own peculiar way, is largely what keeps Linux sidelined for now. At least with Windows I just stick in an installation CD for an application, or click on "install" on a distribution web page, and the install process just starts; with my iPod I just tap AppStore, find the app, and hit "install"; but with Linux I'm not even sure what the name of the application is, much less the precise command needed to install it.
Here's a thought: most iPhone/iPodTouch apps are too cheap. How much performance do buyers seriously expect for a buck? and do developers really expect someone to pay even a buck for such lousy performance?
A recent/. story addressed the "killer app" BulletFlight. Currently it is selling for $11.99 - rather high, relatively speaking, for an iPhone app. The author is planning to raise the price into the hundreds of dollars, reflecting both the price of equivalent top-grade PC applications, the standard price of tools and accessories it will typically be used with, and the sheer convenience of using a tiny iPod instead of lugging around a laptop.
As time passes and developers start creating REAL applications - relatively robust video/audio/photo editing, detailed special-purpose apps, etc. - the prices will go up. Personal computers had cheap crappy software too in the early days of the IBM PC and Windows, much of it "buy it cheap, use it once, shelve it 'cuz it's crap". Ditto iPod apps: right now it's easy to make cheezy apps that might actually sell; give developers some time, and we'll see worthwhile apps - at profitable prices.
That's fine. I understand that news costs money to create, and free (beer) distribution means whoever does the work doesn't have a reason to. So, we move to a paid model.
Will I get what I pay for? As it is, news is largely vapid, telling people what they want to hear (celebrity X, outrage Y, cuteness Z). If we move to a paid model, will I finally get what I'm paying for - real actual news about what's going on in the world?
Per the law, the copyright holder MAY NOT refuse to license his or her work, as long as the user is willing to pay the statutory rate.
So... if I set up a digital distribution service, and charge users to access music, and pay the statutory rate (got a link?) to the copyright holder, I can sell any darned music I want via any medium I want to whomever I want? Selling DRM-free MP3s (or, if someone really wants to be a stickler in this broadband era,.ISOs of CDs) from a universal music catalog (Beatles included) is perfectly legal, so long as my accountant keeps it all straight? (I'm not asking if it will be competetively priced, just whether it will be legal.)
As usual with any high-profile legal issue, methinks most everyone (me included) is completely missing the legal point.
I've made a number of technological choices accommodating downtime precisely as a motivator to get out and do something real.
Much as I'd love the always-connected nature of an iPhone, I settle for the iPod Touch precisely because it's not always connected - if I can't get WiFi service, that's a good thing. Blogging is fine, but the rapid update demands of Facebook are more than is worth spending my limited lifespan on. I'm increasingly disliking digital videography, preferring to live the moment than get wrapped up in trying to record it (only to most likely not "relive it" later). Twitter is down? good - go talk to someone in person.
It's 4:53pm on a Friday afternoon, and my team was informed that everyone had to be here from 8:00am to 5:00pm every day without fail, regardless of what work needed doing or how negatively one's home life might be impacted. In 7 minutes I'm going to go not innovate from home:(
This on top of every "hey, let's catch up with the rest of the industry and move into the 21st Century - they're doing stuff this way now for a reason" innovative suggestion being shot down (and I mean with such prejudice that termination was threatened at least once).
A little respect for professional experience (in contrast with "nobody is smarter than the supervisor"), and coupled with a little financial incentive, can go a long way.
I like to innovate. Giving me room to really can pay off.
Carrie Fisher just released her autobiography "Wishful Drinking". The cover shows her, as Princess Leia, nearly passed out with martini glass in hand and pills nearby.
Don't think she'll be saving us from the Empire this time around.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's see you stuff a Macintosh 512k into your shirt pocket.
It isn't standards compliant. When standards disintegrate the consumer pays.
You aware of the price consumers paid having to support "standards" like ISA, SCSI, RS232, Centronix, and others that "had to" be complied with, at considerable cost in $$$ and size and complexity, for years beyond any sane benefit.
It promotes vendor lock in. It isn't inter-operable with other equipment. Consider digital SLRs.
For some systems, inter-operability is a hindrance. You're buying into a SYSTEM, not an individual product, and forcing compatability among systems loses an edge some are willing to pay a price for.
Once you buy into a brand and you've invested in enough equipment you're stuck with that brand unless you sell it all and start again.
Welcome to life. Sometimes you have to sell out of an old system to buy into a new one; the old just can't be salvaged at some point.
People who are replacing an older model may not realize there is new lock in until they've actually bought the product.
Buyer beware. So long as the seller isn't devious/malicious; sometimes the buyer actually needs to make an intelligent choice.
When a market leader pulls this crap, others do too and pretty soon all the MP3 players you can buy have this "feature".
And progress is made. Apple "pulled this crap" by putting USB and FireWire on their computers, leading other manufacturers to eventually (thankfully) abandon Parallel Printer Ports, Serial Ports, and other fat-cable incompatable old crud. People bitched when FireWire was added; now they're bitching because it's going away.
Lots of people don't care much what headphones they have, they just wanna listen to music while exercising, and they want a small light device to do that.
And most of them are content with what came in the box. Alternatives ARE available, in and out of the Apple store, and there will be a plethora of options once other headphone manufacturers catch up.
What about those that do care about the headphones? What about those who can't use ear buds due to hearing or ear problems?
FOR THE Nth FING TIME: THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE COMPATIBLE HEADPHONES AVAILABLE. AND MORE WILL BE AVAILABLE SOON.
And maybe the Shuffle isn't for you anyway. Try a Nano, or buy a refurbished (and much cheaper!) older Shuffle. Or some other product. And - surprise - IIRC, if you plug in regular headphones it WILL play according to the power switch settings (it IS a SHUFFLE, with the whole idea being "just let it play").
"[There will be] other headphones to choose from." Not if there's a patent on the tech and Apple wants to lock them out
You have any basis for that allegation? TFA's point is that the much-derided headphone DRM isn't after all. Have you SEEN how much iPod-compatible crap there is out there? Apple surely isn't trying to "lock out" anyone.
If they aren't locked out there's a licensing fee which drives the price up of all the headphones
Not by much, considering how cheap some of that iPod-compatible crap there is.
There's no standard way to control a device from a standard headphone jack
Well maybe we should move on already. We're in the friggin' 21st Century!
Sounds like a good argument to develop a standard rather than applaud this bad behaviour.
Standards don't tend to happen until someone starts to make one. Apple is, and now other manufacturers have to either get on board or agree on their own.
This is innovation? Seriously? Controlling a player externally via a proprietary cable? Really??? If this is considered innovation, there's a real problem.
Well, considering how much it's upsetting you (and others), there must really be something to it.
Get a grip, people. Standard dumb headphones are so last-century. One company adds minor functionality to their bottom-end product, and suddenly everyone is freaking out as if every gas station switched to hydrogen.
Belkin.
Dell.
Office Depot.
Just one more company on my short, but growing, list of companies I just won't deal with at all, ever, because of some galactically stupid screw-the-customer policy.
For years now, companies have been switching their names from meaningful terms to meaningless symbols - and have to for legal reasons. Ex.: "General Electric", a well-regarded company with a name having meaning, changed the name formally to "GE" and made it clear that was NOT an abbreviation for anything; "Xerox" spends considerable money ensuring people do NOT equate the otherwise meaningless name with a verb for photocopying. That a company name not have debilitating associations with other public domain (or otherwise owned) terms is important.
Likewise, the fact that "Sci Fi" is cultural terminology and not an abstract name is a legal liability. Changing the name to a similar, but legally disconnected from anything, term "Syfy" relieves them of a lot of BS regarding trademark & copyright law. Of course they spin it as something cool, but most likely their legal department made it clear "change the name or we're going to lose a LOT of money".
This is /., aka "News for Nerds" - not "Consumer Reports".
I'd ask you to turn in your geek card but obviously you don't have one.
Do not taunt Magnetic Spin Battery.
I find this amusing for some reason, considering I just got Amazon's Kindle for iPod Touch reader for free - and the iPod cost a whole lot less than a Kindle (in my case, free with MacBook purchase). Amazon can't say squat about the other e-book readers I also have for the iPod. Come the 10" iPod Touch, Kindle won't have much to offer in competition - especially if Amazon successfully drives away all 3rd-party sources.
Likewise, I listen to long trance/techno music mixes to work. I _must_ keep a certain part of my brain occupied lest I get too distracted/bored quickly (having a factory across the hall, plus lots of impromptu stand-up meetings happening nearby, doesn't help). Trance/techno is designed not to engage high cognition (unlike most music with attention-grabbing lyrics and melodies), but still gives something for non-programming mental activites to focus on.
Earplugs don't solve the problem of blocking distractions; if anything, they make it worse as my mind automatically starts straining to make out tiny sounds.
iPods and podcasts are wonderful: endless new material to keep the "ooh! shiny!" neurons busy while the computational theory ones get real work done.
You are willing to shell out serious bucks to play the latest and greatest games in the best settings possible - so yeah you're willing to pop $500 for a really good game, above and beyond the standard $60 release. Heck, game companies should consider that there is indeed a market for narrow-release, high-dollar games (just like any other luxury goods category).
I'm not a hardcore gamer. I'm not gonna drop even $60 on a game. Content with good games of the past, I'm happily working thru a $5 used copy of Max Payne, and have a $3 copy of Oni in queue. Not exactly free, but close enough considering the relatively high satisfaction I get from each. My PSP + Daxter were free by using a Sony credit card enough. Not the latest, not the greatest, but [shrug] they're just games.
Free is not the future of gaming. Continuation of supply-and-demand is the future of gaming. Those wanting the best/latest will pay dearly for it. Those wanting to spend little can buy used or legacy copies. Those wanting to grab eyeballs for advertising will pay accordingly to support "free" games. Those wanting to get otherwise unlikely players hooked will use the "shareware" model. Those who compulsively write such software may go OSS if they can't get hired to do so. Supply-and-demand will find a way.
You SURE only British law applies? As noted in another post, when you start hijacking 22,000 computers on the Internet, most likely SOME of those will be in the USA (or other countries where such activity IS illegal). You sure those BBC lawyers know enough about technology to be sure that the activity was limited to British computers, and this did not actually risk becoming an international incident?
Most states include a catch-all "intent" statute in their weapons laws. It's not that the law says that a knife blade under 4" is _not_ a weapon, it's that the law does _not_ say that it _is_. It is still subject to being labeled a "weapon" if circumstances indicate you _intend_ it as such.
There are approximately 20,000 gun control laws in this country. Yes, I have a copy of all of them (BATFE annually sends them to FFL licensees). Obviously not an issue for those uninterested in guns or who rarely travel, but those who (responsibly!) exercise their 2nd Amendment rights regularly and travel often (I do both, visiting about 10 states a year, often on short notice). That's twenty thousand laws one may (or may not) be subject to while travelling around this country, covering >60 jurisdictions (federal, state, territory, major cities), with the same actions garnering full legality in one jurisdiction while being a major felony mere feet away in another.
That's an _average_ of >400 laws per jurisdiction (with some overlapping) just for guns - something we allegedly have a Constitutional right to.
(The particular subject of the aforementioned laws isn't important; what's important that some 1/3rd of US citizens are actively subject to hundreds of laws which they, and any officers which they may encounter, most likely have never read - and that's just for one legal subject matter.)
Indeed! I've had two Sony ultraportable notebooks (10" screens). Being able to easily take it everywhere is practically life-changing. Allowing that a few functions were limited (i.e.: serious gaming), computing became available to me wherever a regular notebook (and certainly desktops) couldn't. Pricy, yes, but worth it.
Marching technology forward, prices have dropped and general use requirements have plateaued, leading to the sudden discovery by manufacturers that there is, in fact, huge demand for small light (and now cheap) computers that do most things well, and do them everywhere.
Triangulating this, the iPhone / iPod Touch has shown there's a market even for pocket-sized devices with largely the same capacity. Having gotten a Touch, I've nearly abandoned my aformentioned ultraportable notebook due to (of all things) its relatively large size and inconvenience. That the Touch and iPhone are also iPods is almost coincidental, thanks to the web browsing / email / apps capabilities. Expand the Touch platform into a 7"-10" screen, and bump up the computing power & battery using the extra space, and dang that would sell big. The "virtual keyboard" works fine; maybe not quite as fast as clicking switches, but pretty close - add bluetooth and the keyboard/mouse angle is instantly covered.
Being able to take 90% of your computing needs everywhere, all the time, is huge. Clamshells and keyboards are the big hinderance at this point. A thin multi-touch slate, with instant-on & aggressive connectivity, would sell big. Clicky keyboards are so 20th century...
Fine. I ran the GUI installer (yeah, "Synaptic" is a really obviously the installer, right). I installed several programs (largely selected at random from thousands of meaningless or obtuse names). Now I can't find the programs; bits and pieces are scattered around, but none can be initiated. They don't show up on the start menu, the files are buried in various "could be here, could be there, who knows" locations (no executibles visible so far), no "here's how you start it" indications were shown, and the best I get is insults from the likes of you.
No wonder people buy Macs or install Windows. Those, for all their foibles, work. Installing a program is obvious (insert CD, click obvious buttons), and running it is obvious (Start, Programs, look for highlighted new-program entries).
For my next machine, I'll buy a Mac. Plunking down a couple hundred bucks for a program that installs & runs in seconds is cheaper than spending hours dorking around with one almost-but-not-quite working alleged "free" application or OS. Life is short, and Quake 2 should run - not hide - when I install it. Of course, you'll retort with more insults - yeah, that'll help the cause.
Thank you for getting it, and articulating it.
Regarding the "what's up with 'apt'?" question, I've gotten gobs of responses ranging from a polite explanation to being called a "f-ing tool" repeatedly. None recognize that, details of explanation aside, it's not obvious - how the he11 am I supposed to know the command is "apt-get" if I don't know that the package is called "Aptitude"? and why should I know it all revolves around such a non-sequitor name? And that I've been deep in computing for 20+ years should (as someone did thankfully notice) indicate that maybe the problem isn't the users being ignorant, but the developers making things obtuse on the presumption that those entering the realm should deign to learn such details to the satisfaction of the High Priests (gee, wasn't that the great gripe against IBM years ago?) before being free to use the system.
A co-worker had a similar complaint about his new iPod Touch. He didn't know that "Safari" was the web browser - who could blame him? the name has nothing to do with the task. We don't go around asking "where's the Xerox?", and the owner of Kleenex brand actually has to legally discourage people from equating the term with nasal tissue. Knowing that "Aptitude" is the root name for the installation tools doesn't help the chicken-and-egg problem of finding out what the name of the installation tool is! why not just "install X"?
Yes, I'm a hardcore geek. That I don't know all the primary incantations for Linux doesn't diminish my geekness.
Finally: good to know there is progress being made with "Install Program" from the main drop-down menu on some (!) distros. Sounds like there is still a ways to go, both with making everything available, and with concealing details most users don't need to be confused with. Now I know what "Synaptic" is (thanks to a coincidental comment, not clarity on the menus), and get to spend hours figuring out what's relevant, obtuse, and/or missing.
If I have to spell her name in order to communicate, yes.
This is precisely why my daughter's name is "Kirsten" instead of "Kirstyn" as my wife wanted; she finally understood my insistence on the former when we wanted to buy some trinket with her name on it, the 'y' spelling was not available but the standard 'e' version was, and she almost bought it anyway until I pointed out how annoying/disrespectful that would be. Having finally chosen the standard spelling, we are nonetheless eternally dealing with people calling her "Kristen". So yes, a minor change in spelling IS, in my experience, pointlessly confusing.
how do you install and update software on your mac
Either insert the CD, or go to the web page, and click "install". Click a few obvious buttons thereafter if needed. If something special like Flash or OpenGL is needed, it offers to install that too. Easy.
Linux, well, why doesn't "app-install get X" work? Oh, right, it's "app-get X install" ... er ... "app-get install X" ... er ... crap, it was some stupid mis-spelling that made no sense ...
Exactly. Every time I dig into the Linux-software-install problem, the answers are always "oh, it's easy, just do X and Y and Z and P and D and Q - no problem!" Never mind that it works most of the time (what of the rest?), and there's a dozen other comparable posts that say something different and also may or may not work. I shouldn't have to elicit an obtuse answer from some unknown guy by posting a somewhat trollish message on /. - the answer should be right there on the desktop. Even the "just click on Install Programs for Ubuntu" comments come with "but when (not if) that doesn't work, use this non-intuitive command..." disclaimers.
This is why people buy Macs: it's pervasively designed for simplicity & intuition, not presumption of knowledge of cryptic commands. Would someone kindly explain why it's "apt-get" instead of "app-get"? what's with the 't'?
Is "apt-get install" really that much different?
Yes, it is. "Rover, sit" works because "Rover" is the name of the dog, "sit" is a common English word, and the command pattern has been drilled into us since childhood. "apt-get install" - WTF is that to someone new to Linux? What's "apt" (I'd expect "app" at least)? Why the hyphenated "-get"? If I'm saying "get" the application, why do I have to include the redundant "install"? Heck, I'm a long-time hardcore geek and _still_ have to look it up every time; it's just not intuitive to someone who either is new to the concept of operating systems, nor to those who have to deal with a half-dozen or more OSes on a regular basis.
The App Store model, cheezy as it may be, works precisely because it's easy to find, easy to run, and easy to find & install applications. Linux doesn't have it yet. Having to spend hours Googling for what apps depend on what other apps, and how to install each of them in their own peculiar way, is largely what keeps Linux sidelined for now. At least with Windows I just stick in an installation CD for an application, or click on "install" on a distribution web page, and the install process just starts; with my iPod I just tap AppStore, find the app, and hit "install"; but with Linux I'm not even sure what the name of the application is, much less the precise command needed to install it.
Here's a thought: most iPhone/iPodTouch apps are too cheap. How much performance do buyers seriously expect for a buck? and do developers really expect someone to pay even a buck for such lousy performance?
A recent /. story addressed the "killer app" BulletFlight. Currently it is selling for $11.99 - rather high, relatively speaking, for an iPhone app. The author is planning to raise the price into the hundreds of dollars, reflecting both the price of equivalent top-grade PC applications, the standard price of tools and accessories it will typically be used with, and the sheer convenience of using a tiny iPod instead of lugging around a laptop.
As time passes and developers start creating REAL applications - relatively robust video/audio/photo editing, detailed special-purpose apps, etc. - the prices will go up. Personal computers had cheap crappy software too in the early days of the IBM PC and Windows, much of it "buy it cheap, use it once, shelve it 'cuz it's crap". Ditto iPod apps: right now it's easy to make cheezy apps that might actually sell; give developers some time, and we'll see worthwhile apps - at profitable prices.
If you want real news, you will need to pay.
That's fine. I understand that news costs money to create, and free (beer) distribution means whoever does the work doesn't have a reason to. So, we move to a paid model.
Will I get what I pay for? As it is, news is largely vapid, telling people what they want to hear (celebrity X, outrage Y, cuteness Z). If we move to a paid model, will I finally get what I'm paying for - real actual news about what's going on in the world?
...are you saying what I think you're saying?
Per the law, the copyright holder MAY NOT refuse to license his or her work, as long as the user is willing to pay the statutory rate.
So ... if I set up a digital distribution service, and charge users to access music, and pay the statutory rate (got a link?) to the copyright holder, I can sell any darned music I want via any medium I want to whomever I want? Selling DRM-free MP3s (or, if someone really wants to be a stickler in this broadband era, .ISOs of CDs) from a universal music catalog (Beatles included) is perfectly legal, so long as my accountant keeps it all straight? (I'm not asking if it will be competetively priced, just whether it will be legal.)
As usual with any high-profile legal issue, methinks most everyone (me included) is completely missing the legal point.
I've made a number of technological choices accommodating downtime precisely as a motivator to get out and do something real.
Much as I'd love the always-connected nature of an iPhone, I settle for the iPod Touch precisely because it's not always connected - if I can't get WiFi service, that's a good thing. Blogging is fine, but the rapid update demands of Facebook are more than is worth spending my limited lifespan on. I'm increasingly disliking digital videography, preferring to live the moment than get wrapped up in trying to record it (only to most likely not "relive it" later). Twitter is down? good - go talk to someone in person.
It's 4:53pm on a Friday afternoon, and my team was informed that everyone had to be here from 8:00am to 5:00pm every day without fail, regardless of what work needed doing or how negatively one's home life might be impacted. In 7 minutes I'm going to go not innovate from home :(
This on top of every "hey, let's catch up with the rest of the industry and move into the 21st Century - they're doing stuff this way now for a reason" innovative suggestion being shot down (and I mean with such prejudice that termination was threatened at least once).
A little respect for professional experience (in contrast with "nobody is smarter than the supervisor"), and coupled with a little financial incentive, can go a long way.
I like to innovate. Giving me room to really can pay off.
Oops, it's 5:00pm now. Bye.
Carrie Fisher just released her autobiography "Wishful Drinking". The cover shows her, as Princess Leia, nearly passed out with martini glass in hand and pills nearby.
Don't think she'll be saving us from the Empire this time around.