It does get a little old, doesn't it? OSS advocates jump on every little story or theory that says that Microsoft will soon lose its dominance. "Thousands download pro-Firefox commercials!" "Latvian municipal governments switch to Linux!" I've said it before, and I'll say it again: pseudo-trend reports and advocacy is actually bad for OSS, because it devalues reports and advocacy based on real trends.
Such as this one. Its premise is non-new, but still important: the most likely way for Microsoft to lose its dominance of desktop computing is for there to be a fundamental shift in the way people do desktop computing. As long as desktop computing == PCs, Microsoft will be able to leverage technological lockin and captive customer base to control the market. (Assuming those evil socialist-liberals don't return to power long enough to succeed in breaking up MS.) But if people start using network appliances instead of PCs, Windows is in trouble, because manufacturers are not going to pay stiff license fees for an OS that basically sucks as a thin client platform.
Previous appliances, such as Audrey, have failed, partly because they cost too much, but also because they assumed an Internet infrastructure that wasn't in place. The infrastructure still isn't in place, but it seems to be getting there. And maybe new technology will bring down the cost of appliances, though TFA doesn't really make a good case for that.
Which is all kind of ironic. PCs become dominant as the most standard implementation of the "open" system concept that goes back to the Apple II. Wozniak invented that kind of system because he wanted a platform for geeks like himself to "plug in" new kinds of hardware and software. Now gatekeeper for the most common version of that platform is a huge monopoly most geeks hate -- and the only way to deprive them of their role a universal gatekeeper is to invent a new kind of platform that is much less hackable.
You're describing somebody who is so afraid of making a bad decision, they can't make any. TFA describes pretty much the opposite problem: being unfraid to risk a bad decision, but never being able to admit that it was bad.
Easter Eggs are, by definition, hidden. These are inside jokes, or references, or whatever, but they're certainly not Easter Eggs. Especially not the Wilhelm Scream, which has been an inside Hollywood joke for decades.
It's not about "bad" versus "good". Every programming language makes tradeoffs between two conflicting goals: making it easier for the programmer to create code quickly and easily, and safeguarding against programmer error. Every restriction you could build into a language has vehement fans who consider it necessary to writing safe code, and rabid opponents who think its a stupid restriction that any truely competent programmer doesn't need. Requiring that a programmer declare variable is only one of many such restrictions. There must be thousands.
So if you have hardware that can handle a medium now, you're guaranteed to have that hardware 40 years from now? Many people with their data stored on 9-track tapes, punched cards, 8-inch floppies, and other such stuff would beg to differ.
The whole question is based on false premise. There's lots of media that's advertised as long term, but how do you know that you can find inexpensive tech to play it back forty years from now? You should plan on making complete copies of all your music (and other data) every ten years, just to make sure that it's in a form people still use. Then you only have to worry about finding media that lasts you ten years -- though to play it safe, you should add an extra decade safety margin.
Another bozo who sees security only in absolutes. Saying that there is no "safe web browser" is like saying there's pick-proof lock. Technically true, but should you secure your valuable with a $2 lock? Security is not about absolute guarantees, it's about making life as hard for the bad guys as you can manage. Mozilla-based browser have security holes, but at least their designers attempt to design them with security in mind. Internet Explorer, by contrast, does not have security designed in, and has cruddy QA to boot. Which is reflected in the dozen or so reported security problems in Mozilla, and the hundreds of reported security problems in IE.
Not everybody has a credit card. If you're in credit counselling, the first thing they do is make you give up all your cards, so you can only spend ready cash.
You can now plunk down some cash and buy a debit card that's only good for the amount you put into it. That might be a good alternative. Expensive though.
But all these strategies require common sense and caution. I suspect this guy has neither, since he's dealing with several alleged frauds on more than one card.
It has been over a month and my bank is still stringing me along saying it will take up to 10 weeks to get my money back.
Like so many Ask Slashdots, this one revolves around somebody's misperception that the world revolves around them. Ten weeks is not "stringing along". It's a reasonable period to investigate a serious fraud. You don't mention how much money is at stake, but I assume it's a substantial amount, or you wouldn't be so pissed off. In effect, they're handing that money over to you, money they're probably never recover. Do you really expect anybody to do that without checking everything out carefully?
Put yourself in their shoes. Suppose somebody called you up and said, "You owe me $1000 because..." Never mind the "because", it's a reason that might or might not be valid. Are you immediately going to write them a check? No, you're going to carefully examine their claim, check the facts, maybe talk to a lawyer. Why should your bank be any less careful? Because they have lots of money? They soon won't have any money at all if they give it away to anybody who claims they deserve it.
I'm not sure what you mean by "formal definition". I'm certainly not going to accept a sloppy definition of "evangelist" just because it happens to be used in WordNet by some computer science student. In any case, "evangelist", like most words, has multiple meanings. You can't refute my argument just by insisting on a usage different from the one I meant.
Perhaps my point will be clearer if I restate my orginal argument without using that controversial word: Too much Linux advocacy is based on somebody's heartfelt belief that Linux is superior in every way to Windows. Not just superior technically, but socially, economically, even morally. I don't actually disagree with most of that -- I just think that most decision makers don't give a shit. If you want them to use Linux -- or any other OSS solution -- you need to show them how it addresses their needs as they perceive them, and stop trying to change their whole world view.
It's stupid to pretend M$ and similar companies spending large sums of money trying to kill FOSS mindshare is not harmful. They want to marginalise FOSS.
I've never disputed that. I'm only arguing that religious zealotry is not a productive response.
That's ironic. By equating evangelism with marketing, you echo (unconsciously, I assume) Microsoft's "Your potential, our passion!"
But they're not the same thing. A marketeer is a hired gun who helps you find a market. An evangelist (in Greek, it means "bringer of good news") is a true believer who wants to make the world a better place. Billy Graham doesn't evangelize because he's worried about empty churches -- he wants to save souls.
I'm all for Linux advocates thinking less like evangelists and more like marketeers. Then they'd think more about solving the problems of potential Linux users, and less about telling everybody how cool Linux is.
So what? It's not as if SBC doesn't know how to run a telecom network. Your problem is not with SBC's hardware, it's their inept technical support, staffed by people with zero problem-solving skills. Competitors may not be able to offer you a non-SBC network, but they can certainly do a better job of fixing things when they get broken.
A fan-produced Star Trek movie is definitely not legal. Viacom may have trouble keeping up with all the trademark-infringing Trekkies out there, but that doesn't mean they're not breaking any rules.
I think any Russian who saw your post would probably say, "Chill out, dude!" They've been dealing with a shoddy infrastructure for decades -- a power outage is not likely to take them unprepared.
I'm amused that this post got so many "flamebait" mods. I guess I offended peoples' Libertarian sensibilities. Face it, people: not all restrictive laws come from fuzzy-headed liberals, fascistic reactionaries, and evil bureaucrats. Most actually come from decent ordinary people who see nothing wrong with having the goverment protect their property and lifestyle.
So you want to sit down and watch a movie, but you can't be bothered to find a hotspot? Whatever. You can't dismiss a device just because it doesn't support a minor need -- one already met by existing products. Nokia is a wireless company, so of course they hardware assumes that connectivity is available.
Exactly right. Linux advocates need to stop thinking of themselves as evangelists. People will buy what works -- they could care less about geek religious issues. If you want to attack the Microsoft Monoculture, deal with the issues that makes it dominant: legacy support, interoperability, retraining costs.
Re:Business skill at work
on
Blank Keyboard
·
· Score: 1
Actually, $80 is not a lot for a keyboard that adds serious value. I was glad to pay more than that for the Goldtouch keyboard just because it lays out cursor keys sanely and because it's small enough not to crowd my mouse off a small work area.
Alas, this piece of nonsense isn't in the same ballpark. Blank keycaps are not a bad idea (I actually learned to type on a typewriter with blank keycaps, which I guess makes me pretty ancient), nor is tweaking the springiness of individual keys. But people will not pay $55 extra for two minor improvements!
The high price is not an indication of business skill -- quite the opposite. Somebody decided there was a market for a couple of features and set out to sell them, but didn't bother to do their homework. They went ahead and did a small production run, naively assuming that whatever it cost them to make, they could sell the product for slightly more.
The marketplace doesn't work that way. Consumers don't care how much is spent making something. They just care whether it's worth spending money on. So you need to sit down and figure out how much people are willing to pay for what you want to sell. (Keyboards with a comparable feature set seem to sell for a max of $40.) Then you figure out how many you have to make in order for individual units to cost less than you can sell them for. Which in this case means a big production run. Which probably would have cost more than this "entrepeneur" could raise. Oh well!
It's sad how few geeks understand the economics behind the manufacture of hardware they use every day.
Perhaps I misremember, but I seem to recall that back in the 70s, before they strung fiberoptic almost everwhere, a lot of long-distance phone connections were made by geosync satellite. Delays were only mildly irritating. I think a lot of of developing-world phone systems, which can't afford to string a lot of cable between towns, still rely on geosync satellites.
Bill realized MS will fold in his lifetime, probably within a decade. Of the $10 billion distributed, $1 billion went to him. That should provide a nice retirement.
Bill's retirement is already amply provided for. Even if his $28 billion in Microsoft stock suddenly becomes worthless (unlikely), he's got another $18 billion in non-Microsoft assets. And collecting that dividend must of cost him big taxwise. He could have collected the same amount, and paid less tax on it, by selling some of his stock -- which he does all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Such as this one. Its premise is non-new, but still important: the most likely way for Microsoft to lose its dominance of desktop computing is for there to be a fundamental shift in the way people do desktop computing. As long as desktop computing == PCs, Microsoft will be able to leverage technological lockin and captive customer base to control the market. (Assuming those evil socialist-liberals don't return to power long enough to succeed in breaking up MS.) But if people start using network appliances instead of PCs, Windows is in trouble, because manufacturers are not going to pay stiff license fees for an OS that basically sucks as a thin client platform.
Previous appliances, such as Audrey, have failed, partly because they cost too much, but also because they assumed an Internet infrastructure that wasn't in place. The infrastructure still isn't in place, but it seems to be getting there. And maybe new technology will bring down the cost of appliances, though TFA doesn't really make a good case for that.
Which is all kind of ironic. PCs become dominant as the most standard implementation of the "open" system concept that goes back to the Apple II. Wozniak invented that kind of system because he wanted a platform for geeks like himself to "plug in" new kinds of hardware and software. Now gatekeeper for the most common version of that platform is a huge monopoly most geeks hate -- and the only way to deprive them of their role a universal gatekeeper is to invent a new kind of platform that is much less hackable.
Nobody here will like that movie. Joss Whedon stubornly insists that there are no sounds in space. Heresy!
As long as you know that you're messing up....
You're describing somebody who is so afraid of making a bad decision, they can't make any. TFA describes pretty much the opposite problem: being unfraid to risk a bad decision, but never being able to admit that it was bad.
Easter Eggs are, by definition, hidden. These are inside jokes, or references, or whatever, but they're certainly not Easter Eggs. Especially not the Wilhelm Scream, which has been an inside Hollywood joke for decades.
It's not about "bad" versus "good". Every programming language makes tradeoffs between two conflicting goals: making it easier for the programmer to create code quickly and easily, and safeguarding against programmer error. Every restriction you could build into a language has vehement fans who consider it necessary to writing safe code, and rabid opponents who think its a stupid restriction that any truely competent programmer doesn't need. Requiring that a programmer declare variable is only one of many such restrictions. There must be thousands.
So if you have hardware that can handle a medium now, you're guaranteed to have that hardware 40 years from now? Many people with their data stored on 9-track tapes, punched cards, 8-inch floppies, and other such stuff would beg to differ.
The whole question is based on false premise. There's lots of media that's advertised as long term, but how do you know that you can find inexpensive tech to play it back forty years from now? You should plan on making complete copies of all your music (and other data) every ten years, just to make sure that it's in a form people still use. Then you only have to worry about finding media that lasts you ten years -- though to play it safe, you should add an extra decade safety margin.
Another bozo who sees security only in absolutes. Saying that there is no "safe web browser" is like saying there's pick-proof lock. Technically true, but should you secure your valuable with a $2 lock? Security is not about absolute guarantees, it's about making life as hard for the bad guys as you can manage. Mozilla-based browser have security holes, but at least their designers attempt to design them with security in mind. Internet Explorer, by contrast, does not have security designed in, and has cruddy QA to boot. Which is reflected in the dozen or so reported security problems in Mozilla, and the hundreds of reported security problems in IE.
You can now plunk down some cash and buy a debit card that's only good for the amount you put into it. That might be a good alternative. Expensive though.
But all these strategies require common sense and caution. I suspect this guy has neither, since he's dealing with several alleged frauds on more than one card.
Put yourself in their shoes. Suppose somebody called you up and said, "You owe me $1000 because ..." Never mind the "because", it's a reason that might or might not be valid. Are you immediately going to write them a check? No, you're going to carefully examine their claim, check the facts, maybe talk to a lawyer. Why should your bank be any less careful? Because they have lots of money? They soon won't have any money at all if they give it away to anybody who claims they deserve it.
Perhaps my point will be clearer if I restate my orginal argument without using that controversial word: Too much Linux advocacy is based on somebody's heartfelt belief that Linux is superior in every way to Windows. Not just superior technically, but socially, economically, even morally. I don't actually disagree with most of that -- I just think that most decision makers don't give a shit. If you want them to use Linux -- or any other OSS solution -- you need to show them how it addresses their needs as they perceive them, and stop trying to change their whole world view.
I've never disputed that. I'm only arguing that religious zealotry is not a productive response.But they're not the same thing. A marketeer is a hired gun who helps you find a market. An evangelist (in Greek, it means "bringer of good news") is a true believer who wants to make the world a better place. Billy Graham doesn't evangelize because he's worried about empty churches -- he wants to save souls.
I'm all for Linux advocates thinking less like evangelists and more like marketeers. Then they'd think more about solving the problems of potential Linux users, and less about telling everybody how cool Linux is.
A fan-produced Star Trek movie is definitely not legal. Viacom may have trouble keeping up with all the trademark-infringing Trekkies out there, but that doesn't mean they're not breaking any rules.
I think any Russian who saw your post would probably say, "Chill out, dude!" They've been dealing with a shoddy infrastructure for decades -- a power outage is not likely to take them unprepared.
I'm amused that this post got so many "flamebait" mods. I guess I offended peoples' Libertarian sensibilities. Face it, people: not all restrictive laws come from fuzzy-headed liberals, fascistic reactionaries, and evil bureaucrats. Most actually come from decent ordinary people who see nothing wrong with having the goverment protect their property and lifestyle.
What's the best mouse for playing GTA III?
Battery life is more of an issue.
Never mind travelling. Even during an ordinary work day, you're often going to be away from your desk for more than 3 hours at a time.
Exactly right. Linux advocates need to stop thinking of themselves as evangelists. People will buy what works -- they could care less about geek religious issues. If you want to attack the Microsoft Monoculture, deal with the issues that makes it dominant: legacy support, interoperability, retraining costs.
Alas, this piece of nonsense isn't in the same ballpark. Blank keycaps are not a bad idea (I actually learned to type on a typewriter with blank keycaps, which I guess makes me pretty ancient), nor is tweaking the springiness of individual keys. But people will not pay $55 extra for two minor improvements!
The high price is not an indication of business skill -- quite the opposite. Somebody decided there was a market for a couple of features and set out to sell them, but didn't bother to do their homework. They went ahead and did a small production run, naively assuming that whatever it cost them to make, they could sell the product for slightly more.
The marketplace doesn't work that way. Consumers don't care how much is spent making something. They just care whether it's worth spending money on. So you need to sit down and figure out how much people are willing to pay for what you want to sell. (Keyboards with a comparable feature set seem to sell for a max of $40.) Then you figure out how many you have to make in order for individual units to cost less than you can sell them for. Which in this case means a big production run. Which probably would have cost more than this "entrepeneur" could raise. Oh well!
It's sad how few geeks understand the economics behind the manufacture of hardware they use every day.
Perhaps I misremember, but I seem to recall that back in the 70s, before they strung fiberoptic almost everwhere, a lot of long-distance phone connections were made by geosync satellite. Delays were only mildly irritating. I think a lot of of developing-world phone systems, which can't afford to string a lot of cable between towns, still rely on geosync satellites.