Gaming just isn't Linux's strength. It's got loads of other strengths, and no one denies that, but it's not really a gaming platform.
If you define a "gaming platform" as "has a lot of commercial games," then you're absolutely right. I would, however, point out that Linux is not significantly worse for game development than any other platform, IMHO.
A handful of games that do work doesn't change that.
No, but it does make it easier for those of us who want to just run Linux.:)
I think Red Hat or SuSE/Novell should sponsor a gaming tournament. It could be relatively cheap publicity amongst a somewhat tech-savvy group. They could even have a booth or something offering Linux support, and a list of Linux games (and fps;)
Seriously, though, if you sponsor a conference or event, you don't have to make them use your software!
Based on an on-computer software firewall you believe you're blocking WMP or any Microsoft application from any net access?
If it's a Microsoft firewall, they can easily sidestep your restrictions (make special exceptions for WMP and other Microsoft/friend apps phoning home)
If it's a non-Microsoft firewall, they can easily sidestep your firewall too. (By using an alternate, undocumented API for doing such special network stuff, and/or by preventing competing antivirus/spyware companies from learning about the APIs enough to block the network activity (two sides of the same coin))
It's a bit paranoid, but I'd argue that it's not too far out, nor is it anywhere near outside the realm of their control. Remember, they control the application and the OS--a very powerful combination.
But the point is that there are alternatives out there where you won't be treated like a pirate--rather, you'll be treated like a full citizen. You need only use them.
The Ubuntu developers and users continue to welcome those users who don't pay Microsoft to use Windows to not pay Ubuntu/Canonical to use Ubuntu. They'll even still give you the 3d-accelerated tasties, office suites, media players, and a load of other software for free.
[NOTE: "Ubuntu" is merely an example (and I'm not an Ubuntu dev, nor do I speak for them); just about all Linux people would likely love to have even a fraction of the Windows pirate marketshare.]
Every majoy piece of software is going "phone home" from here on out.
If, by "majo[r]", you mean "Everything that's commercial" then yes.
I would not use such a definition, and hence (at least in my eyes) there are huge swaths of major software which will never phone home. (and, if somehow someone sneaked it in, you could legally remove it!)
At this point in time, I've heard that Intel's graphics chips work 100% (unfortunately, I've an ATI card and cannot personally verify this, but I will tell you after I've had a chance to upgrade.;)
Makes me wonder how much 'assistance' IBM got from the NSA.
What, you mean like back when they were developing DES, and they got visited by the NSA? It went something like this (totally made-up, aside from the fact that the basic scenario happened):
IBM: So, this is our new crypto algorithm! Isn't it neat? NSA: Yeah, neat. Umm, you should add a little something here. [points to a segment of the chart, indicating that they should include the "S-Box"] IBM: But why? NSA: Because. M'kay? IBM: I guess. OK. [draws in the S-Box]
Then in the late 1980's, differential cryptographic analysis is discovered and, gosh, adding that bit as the NSA said helped prevent differential cryptanalysis from succeeding against it.
Lesson: The NSA isn't entirely evil. They employ some of the brightest mathematicians in the USA, and they use 'em to help the USA's citizens and businesses. This also trickles out into the rest of the world, to a (admittedly limited) extent. Notably, the "USA's citizens' and business'" interest is not always in the interest of other citizens and businesses (nor necessarily all), and politics are involved, so I'm not pretending they're saints either, particularly if you're from another country. But the point is that they provably do good--especially considering that the SE Linux project is sponsored by the NSA. (It's interesting to note that the wikipedia article on the S-box also mentions how people paranoid about NSA backdoors tore apart the S-Box too).
source: A LISA talk/tutorial on cryptography. The wikipedia links have information too.
Yeah, the universe ran out of vanilla, so it's substituting a rich, creamy chocolate.
Yeah, but they both have up- and downsides. While the vanilla is extremely common and thus is not as strange as the chocolate flavour, it still has its charm. But the chocolate is packed with more calories (being more fudge than chocolate) and hence will pack on pounds to your top and bottom.
But the staunch advocates of vanilla aren't at all mute. They've been quite vocal in support of their flavour of choice and have even proposed creating a new sub-flavour, the electric vanilla. Unfortunately for them, however, due to the long legacy of having only vanilla, people have been taught to expect vanilla to be boring. Therefore, the electric vanilla is expected to flop.
Temporarily relieving the boring-vanilla problem, however, someone long ago discovered vanilla in red, green, and blue colours (as well as in cyan, magenta, and yellow, but those are really just the opposite of the other colours). One would hope that the new chocolate flavour would also come in similar colours and--thus far--this seems to be the case.
My humblest apologies for this post; I've been learning particle physics by grading homework in it, and I suspect it's driven me quite mad.
There are issues with TPM vs. free software you didn't address.
As you will see, I have addressed them. Let's go:
What if the kernel you want to boot doesn't have a signature the TPM module recognizes?
Then you sign it with your key. If you don't have the key, as I said, don't buy the TPM/laptop.
If you or some friend or colleague of you modify a kernel, then its signature changes (that's the whole point of signed binaries). So what if you TPM module just refuses to boot from a signature it doesn't know?
Yes. Not booting binaries that haven't been signed by you is the point. You can do most of this now (there was a Linux Journal about this by greg k-h, in fact), but the TPM affords extra protections.
And again, if you don't get the keys to the TPM, don't buy the box.
What if the device is something like a digital video recorder or a wireless router, which in theory runs under Linux or other GPLed software, and you should be able to change the code according to your wishes, but because you don't have a key the TPM module trusts, you can't sign your changes, and the TPM module tells the BIOS not to boot your binary?
Then, again, don't buy the hardware.
he hardware vendor will just tell you that he has to sign all changes, and what use is the GPL for the software to you, if you can't run your modifications without the vendor's agreement?
Very good point. If you don't get the keys, don't buy the box.
So what about running for example other software than Mac OS X on new Apple-Intel hardware, if the BIOS just wants Apple's signature on the kernel binary?
If you don't get the keys, don't buy the box.
As the previous poster already said: If you don't have the keys to your computer, you are not in control of your computer.
Quite right. I'd not buy such a computer either. But you're mistaken if you believe that this is inherently the case.
It doesn't need the malice of the OS designer, it can be already be in the BIOS.
For this bit of nonsense, yes. I've already addressed this, and my statement remains: if you don't get the keys, don't buy the box.
The problem in your argument is that you aren't necessarily denied the keys. If you get the keys, however, the TPM presents a way to shore up a bit more security (plus, it's a hardware encryption device, so you can offload more from the CPU:).
but also the very real (and currently being implemented by Microsoft) threat of massive privacy abuse, survellence and near-total control it allows, instead of just spouting meaningless "It's not evil. It's just hardware" platitudes then, perhaps things will improve.
That's basically what I said, save for the gross misrepresentation, namely "just spouting meaningless 'It's not evil. It's just hardware' platitudes"
Your (apparently) blind hatred for all things TPM seems to have skipped the "currently being implemented by Microsoft" detail of the "threat of massive privacy abuse, survellence and near-total control it allows". You seem to acknowledge the fact that it requires additional OS and/or app support for the abuses part while totally ignoring this same fact anywhere else!
If you don't have access to the keys, then this is not about security" -- Alan Cox.
Quite true, but you have the keys, with the notable exception of the TPM's itself. Theoretically it never leaves the chip and isn't recorded anywhere, but again why I said you had to trust the chip vendor too....
The only additional piece of the puzzle we're missing is the BIOS bootloader verification. Here is likely one of your objections, particularly the keys objection. Never buy a TPM-enabled computer if you cannot sign your own bootloader, for what are likely (to us at least) obvious reasons.
Now why am I having a fight with an AC? Post from a real account or else thread over.
The Werner Von Braun defence. "I only make the rockets go up. Others decide where they land."
Uhhm, no. It's actually the "Hey! There's a baby in that bathwater!" "defence".
As things stand at the moment, Trusted Computing hardware has only one use: to remove the control of the computer from its owner.
That may well be its intended use. That does not however, mean that there are not other uses for it. Indeed, I have outlined some. Additionally, the simple fact that you have a TPM doesn't immediately imply that you files are removed from your control. It takes the cooperation of the application and/or the OS.
Therefore, you can have the baby without the bathwater by using the BSD (or Linux or whatever) strainer.
How is it NOT bad when your personal computer, to which you entrust essentially all your documents, can hide software and data from you?
The chip does nothing of this. The chip itself only encrypts and decrypts. The rest of the nightmare scenario requires a Treacherous Computing operating system and/or application software to do this.
Notably, a TPM has a great many advantages (provided you trust the vendor anyway)--but only when implemented on a trustable OS and application. For instance, you can use it to trusted bootstrap (using a previously signed Linux kernel (basically saying you or someone you trust created the kernel)) to avoid boot-time rootkits, and then once you've loaded a trusted kernel, it will help the kernel to check for trusted (signed) modules. It can also check that the ps you're running isn't trojaned (i.e. installed by someone who didn't have the key).
In short, go TPM, but boot Linux (or BSD, or whatever you can trust). The critical difference between Big Brother and Best Friend is whether you or someone else is doing (or able to do) the signing.
But that someone does not have to be you, does it? As long as there are enough suckers willing to pay, there is no need for you to do so.
Quite right. This is true of a great many things. You have the ability to not pay, but I'd argue that it's not a wise tack to take.
It's also apparent that we have radically different definitions of "sucker".
No; the optimal solution here is to wait until the programmers just start to starve from lack of money, and only then to give them any.
Then we disagree. To me, this is a distinctly suboptimal solution.
This way you would expend the minimum amount of your own money for maximum effect, while having bled to the bone all those suckers who kept paying for nothing.
This is quite true in the short-term, microeconomic picture. It fails utterly in the macroeconomic picture.
Also, paying for software is not paying for "nothing."
The greatest good you can do is justice, which is to trade value for equal value.
You have a weird definition of "justice".
By setting the software's price at zero, they have declared it worthless, and by not paying them I am simply fulfilling our contract.
No; this is not at all correct. Price != value. They are certainly correlated, but not isomorphic.
Love is free; is it worthless? You even have to put forth effort to keep it going!
Now it's becoming clear: you warp the definitions so that you can feel good (or, at least, not bad) about your actions. You're "merely"
My own estimation simply determines whether he makes the sale or not, and just as I would not insist on paying more for my groceries when hungry, I would consider it fair and just to pay the seller the price he is asking. Neither would I consider myself under any further obligation.
Would you pay more to a local store if they were going out of business? How about if they're your friend?
The free software fanatics are under the delusion that I would accept their implicit open-ended contract that states that I am required to pay for their software with some unspecified (read "unlimited") amount of work for done them.
No; there is no contract. That's precisely the point. Nothing is required. If you can't pay; that's fine. If you can pay, it would be a good idea to, so that the software can continue to be developed. Yes, you have the option of not paying, but by not doing so, you prevent further development--your piece of the support framework is missing, and others must make up for it or else development stops.
Communism always dies in the long run.
Whoa, doggies!
Where did communism sneak in here?! At best, you miiight have been able to argue implicit socialism (which I'd argue that it's not). Price is only a piece of capitalism, as evidenced by boycotts of various things for various reasons. Else all is nothing more than a race to the bottom.
Slavery can not exist without the slavedriver's whip and, while the communist state can employ force to keep people in line, the free software fanatics can only whine, and without much effect.
Wow. That really sums up your post neatly. Making unwarranted assumptions and then tilting at those windmills with full force.
If the company pays the OpenBSD team, the code gets written, but if it does not pay, the code still gets written.
Excellent point, although not quite completely true:
As long as the OpenBSD team is writing code without requiring payment, it makes far more sense for the company to not pay.
By short-term metrics, this is certainly true. However, your above statement isn't 100% correct. So long as someone (or a group of someones) is supporting the development, the code will get written. As (I believe) you've said before, programmers gotta eat. So they will first seek subsistance (their job), and once that's been satisfied, they'll be coding for their own use and for the greater good. Maslow's hierarchy of needs and all that.
So while it makes sense on the short-term microeconomic level to not pay anything to a project you use, it makes no sense on the long-term macroeconomic level--just as a single family saving money is a wise investment, all families saving money is a recession.
The optimal solution here is for users to pay some money to projects they wish to use. This is a modest, compromise amount, causing the greatest good in the short- and long-terms, and in the micro- and macroeconomics.
Sadly, it seems that the corporate world (and most of the average user world too) is only too happy to sacrifice long-term gain for short-term gain. So conventional modern business practices would likely be in agreement with your statement.
Why should installing video drivers with proper OpenGL support be such a chore?
Quite true. I believe that ATI's installer is now GUI, though. Last I knew, NVidia's wasn't. I don't use either installer; gentoo does its own thing with the package without me having to actually run it.
Other than this minor point, I agree with your sentiment--drivers under Linux could be much easier for the casual user to figure out--unless they're all installed when the distribution is installed, even if the hardware isn't present (If this is the case, then the hardware generally works great). Luckily, the video drivers are more an exception than a rule. The other drivers (experience with SuSE) work fine, but require knowing what they're named if the hardware is installed after the distribution, so that you can select them in the package management system. I believe that most distros have a search function, but that won't necessarily help.
Actually, I should play with SuSE some more; I think that it has a system to re-auto-detect hardware when you ask it to, but it's kind of hidden in there. In my experience, the detection at install generally works fine. I could be wrong; I've not been in front of SuSE for a few months now.
Really, the main solution is for Project Utopia's driver installation mockup I saw early-on to really take off. In the mockups, it was put forward that new devices should be detected by the kernel and the information passed up to a user dialog (via DBus) that would then walk the user through setting up the driver. This should be a fairly straightforward process, so far as I can tell, and the information and infrastructure is pretty much out there already. Maybe the next distro iteration will put the pieces together, but I've unfortunately not heard any rumblings about that.:(
Hmm. And then there's Red Hat's Kudzu (and I believe SuSE has a similar system) that detects new hardware on boot. I'm not certain, though, how it deals with fetching drivers. Anyone have more information on this?
Getting back to software management, however, why should I have to deal with uninstalling a bunch of software that I don't want?
I'm not sure what your beef is here. Before the software is even installed you are presented with a list of software categories (or, for advanced users, you can select individual packages) and you can then choose what should be installed and not installed. Certainly, it has a default set, depending on what you told it you wanted to use the PC for (e.g. workstation, development workstation, server, etc.) I think Ubuntu is the only exception, as it aims to install software to make you productive straight out of the box. For most users, this is the right way to go. The reason you don't have to un-install much in Windows is that you don't get much with Windows.
Thanks for the feedback. Hopefully we in the Linux community can address your issues (which I believe are actually already in the works).
No, I mean I'm getting tired of the semantic arguments you're raising. I believe that you're losing yourself in the details of the argument, not the argument itself.
Yes, a user can choose to use the Windows version of a program or not, but they can't choose the Mac version when there is no Mac version.
Quite true, but it doesn't remove the power of the protest vote. Coupled with a letter, it shows an untapped market.
There are *TWO* relevant choices, but you only seem to require one.
There are always at least two choices. Whatever is available and, to quote an 80's movie, "None of the above!"
In other words, a user can choose to "vote" for the Windows version or not, but they can't "vote" for the Mac version if it doesn't exist.
Quite true. However, buying a Windows version is still "voting" for it, non-isomorphic mappings aside.
Your hair-splitting over trivial terminology is getting in your way.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. It's more or less irrelevant anyway; the market will do what the market will do. I will follow my tack; you will follow yours. Others will follow theirs, and the market will be decided. It's not my market anyway.
Ah, yes, The point I wanted to, but forgot to address.
What it does do is increase (slightly) the demand for the Windows version.
Indeed, and as a corollary decreases (slightly) the demand for the Mac version. Slightly, that is, proportional to the current demand. So on the next iteration, the Mac demand is slightly lower and the Windows version is slightly higher, so a few more vendors will go Windows-only. As a consequence, the Windows demand increases (slightly), and the Mac demand decreases (slightly)--slightly being proportional to the current demand. This is the classic differential equation for an exponential (unless your proportional change in demand is complex, in which case it's oscillatory, but I don't expect that's true.;)
Everyone who installs Windows on a Mac just to play a game or run some program, would much rather buy the game or program for the Mac, if given the choice.
That may be true, but if they buy the Windows version, the vendor has no need to make the investment in a Mac port. Compatibility is a two-way street.
Again with Linux, everyone who boots into Windows just to play a game or run some program would much rather buy the program for Linux. However, if they keep buying the Windows program, they show themselves to be satisfied without it.
Absolutely nobody would prefer to hack their Mac to run Windows, then reboot into Windows just to play a game, over doing so natively on OS X.
Just because you'd rather doesn't mean you won't and therein lies a gulf of difference--and the potential loss of your niche market which up until now has been rather profitible.
The main reasons for fewer Linux ports of Windows software is that Linux is harder to support commercially.
I respectfully disagree. There are many reasons why Linux has fewer ports, and this is one. I wouldn't call it the main reason. The accessibility of Windows is another. All pieces of a puzzle, not the whole puzzle itself. There are many pundits with many points, and, looking at it objectively, one would be hard-pressed to call any one of them the "main" reason.
In "voting with your wallet", those with more money have more votes.
Quite true. This is why we so much Windows software and so little Mac and Linux software. This isn't a problem; it's the nature of the beast.
The second problem is that if you "vote for the Mac" by not buying Counter-Strike 2 to run on Windows on your Mac, then you have to do without Counter-Strike 2.
I don't see this as a problem.
The only way "voting with your wallet" counts is when you have a choice.
You do have a choice. As many Microsoft fanboys will point out to you, you don't have to buy Windows. But the reality of monopolies is that it's awfully compelling to. With a gameK, it's, well, a game. You can go without.
How can you vote for the Mac version if it's not on the metaphorical ballot?
From what I gather, voting is compulsory in Australia. However, you can make a protest vote, which means you support none of the candidates. Not buying something is a protest vote. When done in an organized fashion, you may recognize it as boycotting, and it can effect change.
The best compromise between "voting with your wallet" and reality would be to buy the Windows game only if you really want it, and to make sure you contact the developer asking for a Mac version.
Indeed. That is exactly voting with your wallet. However, if you do so in this more limited fashion, you can be fairly certain that other Mac users are doing this as well, and hence should not be surprised when the next version or product fails to have a port to MacOS. What you've effectively said to them is that you would prefer to use Mac, but only when it's not too inconvenient. They will certainly listen to you, but not as much as if you--and others with you--were to not have bought the game (and hence have cut into their profits).
I would agree that the power of a single user (or non-user, as the case may be) is very small. However, governmental action aside, it's the only tool we have at our disposal. Unfortunately, from what I've seen thus far, I don't expect Mac users to be much different from Linux users, and I expect that the app availability for Mac will decrease accordingly. But you apparently disagree. Time will tell.
Actually, this year there's no TaxCut for Mac. While TaxCut was and is cheaper than TurboTax, the Mac version was never an option for everyone, as some state versions got released only for Windows, not Mac. Hawaii was one.
Hmm. From your statement (not owning a Mac, I only saw the federal one, I guess), I'm so shocked that "demand [would] continue to decline". (Hint to H&R Block: it's called "losing business to a superior product").
At least there's still the Web version, though now I'm looking at TaxCut's much more favourably.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the point would be "there are more games on Linux than the aforementioned two."
Seriously, though, if you sponsor a conference or event, you don't have to make them use your software!
Unfortunately, it was true enough to be very funny to me, a Linux-only casual gamer (thanks for the heads up on new games I should be buying, btw! ;)
If we don't buy them, they will go away.
Aight, just had to say. :)
It's a bit paranoid, but I'd argue that it's not too far out, nor is it anywhere near outside the realm of their control. Remember, they control the application and the OS--a very powerful combination.
But the point is that there are alternatives out there where you won't be treated like a pirate--rather, you'll be treated like a full citizen. You need only use them.
[NOTE: "Ubuntu" is merely an example (and I'm not an Ubuntu dev, nor do I speak for them); just about all Linux people would likely love to have even a fraction of the Windows pirate marketshare.]
I would not use such a definition, and hence (at least in my eyes) there are huge swaths of major software which will never phone home. (and, if somehow someone sneaked it in, you could legally remove it!)
Lesson: The NSA isn't entirely evil. They employ some of the brightest mathematicians in the USA, and they use 'em to help the USA's citizens and businesses. This also trickles out into the rest of the world, to a (admittedly limited) extent. Notably, the "USA's citizens' and business'" interest is not always in the interest of other citizens and businesses (nor necessarily all), and politics are involved, so I'm not pretending they're saints either, particularly if you're from another country. But the point is that they provably do good--especially considering that the SE Linux project is sponsored by the NSA. (It's interesting to note that the wikipedia article on the S-box also mentions how people paranoid about NSA backdoors tore apart the S-Box too).
source: A LISA talk/tutorial on cryptography. The wikipedia links have information too.
But the staunch advocates of vanilla aren't at all mute. They've been quite vocal in support of their flavour of choice and have even proposed creating a new sub-flavour, the electric vanilla. Unfortunately for them, however, due to the long legacy of having only vanilla, people have been taught to expect vanilla to be boring. Therefore, the electric vanilla is expected to flop.
Temporarily relieving the boring-vanilla problem, however, someone long ago discovered vanilla in red, green, and blue colours (as well as in cyan, magenta, and yellow, but those are really just the opposite of the other colours). One would hope that the new chocolate flavour would also come in similar colours and--thus far--this seems to be the case.
My humblest apologies for this post; I've been learning particle physics by grading homework in it, and I suspect it's driven me quite mad.
And again, if you don't get the keys to the TPM, don't buy the box.
Then, again, don't buy the hardware. Very good point. If you don't get the keys, don't buy the box. If you don't get the keys, don't buy the box. Quite right. I'd not buy such a computer either. But you're mistaken if you believe that this is inherently the case. For this bit of nonsense, yes. I've already addressed this, and my statement remains: if you don't get the keys, don't buy the box.The problem in your argument is that you aren't necessarily denied the keys. If you get the keys, however, the TPM presents a way to shore up a bit more security (plus, it's a hardware encryption device, so you can offload more from the CPU :).
Your (apparently) blind hatred for all things TPM seems to have skipped the "currently being implemented by Microsoft" detail of the "threat of massive privacy abuse, survellence and near-total control it allows". You seem to acknowledge the fact that it requires additional OS and/or app support for the abuses part while totally ignoring this same fact anywhere else!
Quite true, but you have the keys, with the notable exception of the TPM's itself. Theoretically it never leaves the chip and isn't recorded anywhere, but again why I said you had to trust the chip vendor too....The only additional piece of the puzzle we're missing is the BIOS bootloader verification. Here is likely one of your objections, particularly the keys objection. Never buy a TPM-enabled computer if you cannot sign your own bootloader, for what are likely (to us at least) obvious reasons.
Now why am I having a fight with an AC? Post from a real account or else thread over.
Therefore, you can have the baby without the bathwater by using the BSD (or Linux or whatever) strainer.
Notably, a TPM has a great many advantages (provided you trust the vendor anyway)--but only when implemented on a trustable OS and application. For instance, you can use it to trusted bootstrap (using a previously signed Linux kernel (basically saying you or someone you trust created the kernel)) to avoid boot-time rootkits, and then once you've loaded a trusted kernel, it will help the kernel to check for trusted (signed) modules. It can also check that the ps you're running isn't trojaned (i.e. installed by someone who didn't have the key).
In short, go TPM, but boot Linux (or BSD, or whatever you can trust). The critical difference between Big Brother and Best Friend is whether you or someone else is doing (or able to do) the signing.
It's also apparent that we have radically different definitions of "sucker".
Then we disagree. To me, this is a distinctly suboptimal solution. This is quite true in the short-term, microeconomic picture. It fails utterly in the macroeconomic picture.Also, paying for software is not paying for "nothing."
You have a weird definition of "justice". No; this is not at all correct. Price != value. They are certainly correlated, but not isomorphic.Love is free; is it worthless? You even have to put forth effort to keep it going!
Now it's becoming clear: you warp the definitions so that you can feel good (or, at least, not bad) about your actions. You're "merely"
Would you pay more to a local store if they were going out of business? How about if they're your friend? No; there is no contract. That's precisely the point. Nothing is required . If you can't pay; that's fine. If you can pay, it would be a good idea to, so that the software can continue to be developed. Yes, you have the option of not paying, but by not doing so, you prevent further development--your piece of the support framework is missing, and others must make up for it or else development stops. Whoa, doggies!Where did communism sneak in here?! At best, you miiight have been able to argue implicit socialism (which I'd argue that it's not). Price is only a piece of capitalism, as evidenced by boycotts of various things for various reasons. Else all is nothing more than a race to the bottom.
Wow. That really sums up your post neatly. Making unwarranted assumptions and then tilting at those windmills with full force.So while it makes sense on the short-term microeconomic level to not pay anything to a project you use, it makes no sense on the long-term macroeconomic level--just as a single family saving money is a wise investment, all families saving money is a recession.
The optimal solution here is for users to pay some money to projects they wish to use. This is a modest, compromise amount, causing the greatest good in the short- and long-terms, and in the micro- and macroeconomics.
Sadly, it seems that the corporate world (and most of the average user world too) is only too happy to sacrifice long-term gain for short-term gain. So conventional modern business practices would likely be in agreement with your statement.
Other than this minor point, I agree with your sentiment--drivers under Linux could be much easier for the casual user to figure out--unless they're all installed when the distribution is installed, even if the hardware isn't present (If this is the case, then the hardware generally works great). Luckily, the video drivers are more an exception than a rule. The other drivers (experience with SuSE) work fine, but require knowing what they're named if the hardware is installed after the distribution, so that you can select them in the package management system. I believe that most distros have a search function, but that won't necessarily help.
Actually, I should play with SuSE some more; I think that it has a system to re-auto-detect hardware when you ask it to, but it's kind of hidden in there. In my experience, the detection at install generally works fine. I could be wrong; I've not been in front of SuSE for a few months now.
Really, the main solution is for Project Utopia's driver installation mockup I saw early-on to really take off. In the mockups, it was put forward that new devices should be detected by the kernel and the information passed up to a user dialog (via DBus) that would then walk the user through setting up the driver. This should be a fairly straightforward process, so far as I can tell, and the information and infrastructure is pretty much out there already. Maybe the next distro iteration will put the pieces together, but I've unfortunately not heard any rumblings about that. :(
Hmm. And then there's Red Hat's Kudzu (and I believe SuSE has a similar system) that detects new hardware on boot. I'm not certain, though, how it deals with fetching drivers. Anyone have more information on this?
I'm not sure what your beef is here. Before the software is even installed you are presented with a list of software categories (or, for advanced users, you can select individual packages) and you can then choose what should be installed and not installed. Certainly, it has a default set, depending on what you told it you wanted to use the PC for (e.g. workstation, development workstation, server, etc.) I think Ubuntu is the only exception, as it aims to install software to make you productive straight out of the box. For most users, this is the right way to go. The reason you don't have to un-install much in Windows is that you don't get much with Windows.Thanks for the feedback. Hopefully we in the Linux community can address your issues (which I believe are actually already in the works).
I have vague recollections of hearing that they work with Linux just fine, so I'm trying it this year. Ask me in a couple of weeks. ;)
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. It's more or less irrelevant anyway; the market will do what the market will do. I will follow my tack; you will follow yours. Others will follow theirs, and the market will be decided. It's not my market anyway.
Again with Linux, everyone who boots into Windows just to play a game or run some program would much rather buy the program for Linux. However, if they keep buying the Windows program, they show themselves to be satisfied without it.
Just because you'd rather doesn't mean you won't and therein lies a gulf of difference--and the potential loss of your niche market which up until now has been rather profitible. I respectfully disagree. There are many reasons why Linux has fewer ports, and this is one. I wouldn't call it the main reason. The accessibility of Windows is another. All pieces of a puzzle, not the whole puzzle itself. There are many pundits with many points, and, looking at it objectively, one would be hard-pressed to call any one of them the "main" reason. Quite true. This is why we so much Windows software and so little Mac and Linux software. This isn't a problem; it's the nature of the beast. I don't see this as a problem. You do have a choice. As many Microsoft fanboys will point out to you, you don't have to buy Windows. But the reality of monopolies is that it's awfully compelling to. With a gameK, it's, well, a game . You can go without. From what I gather, voting is compulsory in Australia. However, you can make a protest vote, which means you support none of the candidates. Not buying something is a protest vote. When done in an organized fashion, you may recognize it as boycotting, and it can effect change. Indeed. That is exactly voting with your wallet. However, if you do so in this more limited fashion, you can be fairly certain that other Mac users are doing this as well, and hence should not be surprised when the next version or product fails to have a port to MacOS. What you've effectively said to them is that you would prefer to use Mac, but only when it's not too inconvenient. They will certainly listen to you, but not as much as if you--and others with you--were to not have bought the game (and hence have cut into their profits).I would agree that the power of a single user (or non-user, as the case may be) is very small. However, governmental action aside, it's the only tool we have at our disposal. Unfortunately, from what I've seen thus far, I don't expect Mac users to be much different from Linux users, and I expect that the app availability for Mac will decrease accordingly. But you apparently disagree. Time will tell.
That's just... pathetic.
Hmm. From your statement (not owning a Mac, I only saw the federal one, I guess), I'm so shocked that "demand [would] continue to decline". (Hint to H&R Block: it's called "losing business to a superior product").
At least there's still the Web version, though now I'm looking at TaxCut's much more favourably.