If all you want from computer is slick looking marketing. I encourage you to buy Windows. Buy two instead. Aside - I bet everyone who swears by Windows violates their EULAs.
What is the better operating system? Stupid question. Dumber argument.
If you want to create the tools that canned apps don't provide you choose Linux. First because programming is powerful, easy and free in Linux. Second you can manipulate the damn files since they aren't in a proprietary binary format.
Linux provides something that Microsoft never can. Multiplatform support. Linux will run on a toaster (provided you really wanted it to). It can be customized however you like and it is a solid platform to build any truly efficient appliance. Tivo is a good example, so easy, so solid, sooo Linux. Also infinitely hackable.
No nasty licensing issues. I would never want to compete in a Microsoft world because you can only play by their rules (read EULA).
Finally be concerned about the politics of your OS. Digital Rights Management is coming, and it will not be negotiated in your favor. You like Fair Use, the massive corporate concerns want us to take only what they provide and buy only on their terms. I'm not a big fan of restrictive EULAs. I'm also not a fan of copyrights. And before you ask, no I see no need for inventors to receive anything other than the glory of their own innovation. And before you say, I disagree that the world would come to an end and the economy would collapse.
I use my office and home server on 2.4 kernels without trouble. I got over upgrading to the latest kernel a long time ago. I only upgrade if I need functionality or encounter a serious problem. I moved to 2.4 for USB support. I've only had one kernel panic on my machine in the 2.4 series. And as far as the preemptive patch I have never found it necessary. I do add the microcode support and load the microcode fixes from Intel and my array uses reiserfs which I patched.
Maybe we should organize a formal Digital Rights movement to lobby government and industry. Actually a few high profile protests wouldn't be bad either.
The platform
1) Establish legislation protecting 'Fair Use' rights of all Intellectual Property.
It seems the only argument for Occidental countries selling software that limits others peoples freedom is the fact that it makes money. Sure there are other side arguments but some people feel they should be able to sell anything they want as long as it makes money. But really how different is selling software to limit ones speech or more to the point limit their knowledge of the world. Companies are instruments of Women/Men and are therefore accountable as such. People cannot hide behind the corporate veil violating peoples rights just because it makes money.
I'm not anti-corporate, but if a business practice or product clearly undermines other peoples rights we should scrutinize it very closely.
First, I would say this is not unprecedented. People refuse to pay for content good or bad. National Public Radio (NPR), and newspapers are good examples. Newspapers have a model based upon advertising. The cost of the paper itself covers manufacturing costs, it may even be a mere subsidy of those costs and the primary source of revenue is advertising. NPR has pledge drives, corporate sponsers, and a little government money. Regular radio is advertising based as we know. But of the NPR listeners it is said that only about 1 in 10 actually pledge money. I happen to be a paying member. But that is because I really enjoy NPR and I pay for the NY Times because the writing is excellent. But what keeps them in a position of money making and similar systems on the Internet have failed?
I would say there is no one cause, but some of the problems are:
Things like the aforementioned ringtones for phones have a low perceived value, too many people are willing to give them away and you feel entitled if you are paying for a phone and service. The phone company should do a better job of providing low cost, good will by providing ringtones.
The information provided by papers and radio has an extremely short life span. After the fact, most people couldn't care less. So many people have trouble paying for short lived value. "Today's news lines tomorrow's bird cage" But online news content isn't nearly so useful. If I want papers for the dog or bird, I still need to buy a paper.
MP3's are example of poor corporate custodianship. People hate record companies. How many times have you been cheated, by inferior product? And that is only the fact that CDs are not going to last forever. I own 3 copies of Pixies Doolittle to prove it. How many times have you been irritated by the record company putting out two seperate singles for the same song with different B-sides. But even MP3 isn't the answer because it doesn't have audiophile quality sound, zero quality control and no way to retrieve (not formally) lost music.
DVDs are the same way, I will only mention that Full Metal Jacket is still Pan and Scan only on DVD and why do companies insist on putting entire seasons of a television series on 15 DVDs instead of two? Do they think I have a Tardis to store the damn things in?
Anyway,,, I think people will only pay for content of quality, and for the most part that is the exception and not the rule. Companies have not learned that as long as they continue to make the most by doing the least people feel cheated. Most companies still don't know what to do with the Internet because they don't understand the medium. And it doesn't help that companies do a poor job of integrating content and making it portable. A point that is important that I didn't go into.
Slashdot Mirror
with a Microsoft product.
If all you want from computer is slick looking marketing. I encourage you to buy Windows. Buy two instead. Aside - I bet everyone who swears by Windows violates their EULAs.
What is the better operating system? Stupid question. Dumber argument.
If you want to create the tools that canned apps don't provide you choose Linux. First because programming is powerful, easy and free in Linux. Second you can manipulate the damn files since they aren't in a proprietary binary format.
Linux provides something that Microsoft never can. Multiplatform support. Linux will run on a toaster (provided you really wanted it to). It can be customized however you like and it is a solid platform to build any truly efficient appliance. Tivo is a good example, so easy, so solid, sooo Linux. Also infinitely hackable.
No nasty licensing issues. I would never want to compete in a Microsoft world because you can only play by their rules (read EULA).
Finally be concerned about the politics of your OS. Digital Rights Management is coming, and it will not be negotiated in your favor. You like Fair Use, the massive corporate concerns want us to take only what they provide and buy only on their terms. I'm not a big fan of restrictive EULAs. I'm also not a fan of copyrights. And before you ask, no I see no need for inventors to receive anything other than the glory of their own innovation. And before you say, I disagree that the world would come to an end and the economy would collapse.
cameron.
I use my office and home server on 2.4 kernels without trouble. I got over upgrading to the latest kernel a long time ago. I only upgrade if I need functionality or encounter a serious problem. I moved to 2.4 for USB support. I've only had one kernel panic on my machine in the 2.4 series. And as far as the preemptive patch I have never found it necessary. I do add the microcode support and load the microcode fixes from Intel and my array uses reiserfs which I patched.
White Stripes, and Belle and Sebastian, Billy Bragg and Wilco - Mermaid Avenue, Radiohead to name a few.
Copy protection free since inception.
Maybe we should organize a formal Digital Rights movement to lobby government and industry. Actually a few high profile protests wouldn't be bad either.
The platform
1) Establish legislation protecting 'Fair Use' rights of all Intellectual Property.
2) Repeal of the DMCA
3) Reform copyright law
4) Limit the scope of EULAs
Any comments?
cameron.
I wonder if they are using IPsec over the 802.11b network? I know I would.
It seems the only argument for Occidental countries selling software that limits others peoples freedom is the fact that it makes money. Sure there are other side arguments but some people feel they should be able to sell anything they want as long as it makes money. But really how different is selling software to limit ones speech or more to the point limit their knowledge of the world. Companies are instruments of Women/Men and are therefore accountable as such. People cannot hide behind the corporate veil violating peoples rights just because it makes money.
I'm not anti-corporate, but if a business practice or product clearly undermines other peoples rights we should scrutinize it very closely.
First, I would say this is not unprecedented. People refuse to pay for content good or bad. National Public Radio (NPR), and newspapers are good examples. Newspapers have a model based upon advertising. The cost of the paper itself covers manufacturing costs, it may even be a mere subsidy of those costs and the primary source of revenue is advertising. NPR has pledge drives, corporate sponsers, and a little government money. Regular radio is advertising based as we know. But of the NPR listeners it is said that only about 1 in 10 actually pledge money. I happen to be a paying member. But that is because I really enjoy NPR and I pay for the NY Times because the writing is excellent. But what keeps them in a position of money making and similar systems on the Internet have failed?
I would say there is no one cause, but some of the problems are:
Things like the aforementioned ringtones for phones have a low perceived value, too many people are willing to give them away and you feel entitled if you are paying for a phone and service. The phone company should do a better job of providing low cost, good will by providing ringtones.
The information provided by papers and radio has an extremely short life span. After the fact, most people couldn't care less. So many people have trouble paying for short lived value. "Today's news lines tomorrow's bird cage" But online news content isn't nearly so useful. If I want papers for the dog or bird, I still need to buy a paper.
MP3's are example of poor corporate custodianship. People hate record companies. How many times have you been cheated, by inferior product? And that is only the fact that CDs are not going to last forever. I own 3 copies of Pixies Doolittle to prove it. How many times have you been irritated by the record company putting out two seperate singles for the same song with different B-sides. But even MP3 isn't the answer because it doesn't have audiophile quality sound, zero quality control and no way to retrieve (not formally) lost music.
DVDs are the same way, I will only mention that Full Metal Jacket is still Pan and Scan only on DVD and why do companies insist on putting entire seasons of a television series on 15 DVDs instead of two? Do they think I have a Tardis to store the damn things in?
Anyway,,, I think people will only pay for content of quality, and for the most part that is the exception and not the rule. Companies have not learned that as long as they continue to make the most by doing the least people feel cheated. Most companies still don't know what to do with the Internet because they don't understand the medium. And it doesn't help that companies do a poor job of integrating content and making it portable. A point that is important that I didn't go into.